AIM: To determine the efficacy and long-term outcome of biofeedback treatment for chronic idiopathic constipation and to compare the efficacy of two modes of biofeedback (EMG-based and manometry-based biofeedback). METHODS: Fifty consecutive contactable patients included 8 cases of slow transit constipation, 36 cases of anorectic outlet obstruction and 6 cases of mixed constipation. Two modes of biofeedback were used for these 50 patients, 30 of whom had EMG-based biofeedback, and 20 had manometry-based biofeedback. Before treatment, a consultation and physical examination were done for all the patients, related information such as bowel function and gut transit time was documented, psychological test (symptom checklist 90, SCL90) and anorectic physiological test and defecography were applied. After biofeedback management, all the patients were followed up. The Student's t-test, chi-squared test and Logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The period of following up ranged from 12 to 24 months (Median 18 months). 70 % of patients felt that biofeedback was helpful, and 62.5 % of patients with constipation were improved. Clinical manifestations including straining, abdominal pain, bloating, were relieved, and less oral laxative was used. Spontaneous bowel frequency and psychological state were improved significantly after treatment. Patients with slow and normal transit, and those with and without paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincter on straining, benefited equally from the treatment. The psychological status rather than anorectal test could predict outcome. The efficacy of the two modes of biofeedback was similar without side effects. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that biofeedback has a long-term effect with no side effects, for the majority of patients with chronic idiopathic constipation unresponsive to traditional treatment. Pelvic floor abnormalities and transit time should not be the selection criteria for treatment.
AIM: To determine the efficacy and long-term outcome of biofeedback treatment for chronic idiopathic constipation and to compare the efficacy of two modes of biofeedback (EMG-based and manometry-based biofeedback). METHODS: Fifty consecutive contactable patients included 8 cases of slow transit constipation, 36 cases of anorectic outlet obstruction and 6 cases of mixed constipation. Two modes of biofeedback were used for these 50 patients, 30 of whom had EMG-based biofeedback, and 20 had manometry-based biofeedback. Before treatment, a consultation and physical examination were done for all the patients, related information such as bowel function and gut transit time was documented, psychological test (symptom checklist 90, SCL90) and anorectic physiological test and defecography were applied. After biofeedback management, all the patients were followed up. The Student's t-test, chi-squared test and Logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The period of following up ranged from 12 to 24 months (Median 18 months). 70 % of patients felt that biofeedback was helpful, and 62.5 % of patients with constipation were improved. Clinical manifestations including straining, abdominal pain, bloating, were relieved, and less oral laxative was used. Spontaneous bowel frequency and psychological state were improved significantly after treatment. Patients with slow and normal transit, and those with and without paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincter on straining, benefited equally from the treatment. The psychological status rather than anorectal test could predict outcome. The efficacy of the two modes of biofeedback was similar without side effects. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that biofeedback has a long-term effect with no side effects, for the majority of patients with chronic idiopathic constipation unresponsive to traditional treatment. Pelvic floor abnormalities and transit time should not be the selection criteria for treatment.
Authors: A Dailianas; N Skandalis; M N Rimikis; D Koutsomanis; M Kardasi; A Archimandritis Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Joya T Favreau; Mary L Hardy; Sally C Morton; Elizabeth A Roth; Paul Shekelle Journal: Altern Ther Health Med Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.305
Authors: G Devroede; G Girard; M Bouchoucha; T Roy; R Black; M Camerlain; G Pinard; J C Schang; P Arhan Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: P Paré; Ronald Bridges; Malcolm C Champion; Subhas C Ganguli; James R Gray; E Jan Irvine; Victor Plourde; Pierre Poitras; Geoffrey K Turnbull; Paul Moayyedi; Nigel Flook; Stephen M Collins Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Stacey L Hart; Janet Waimin Lee; Julia Berian; Taryn R Patterson; Amanda Del Rosario; Madhulika G Varma Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 2.571