G Hosker1, J D Cody, C C Norton. 1. St Mary's Hospital, Warrell Unit, Hathersage Road, Manchester, UK M13 OJH. Gordon.Hosker@CMMC.nhs.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a particularly embarrassing and distressing condition with significant medical, social and economic implications. Electrical stimulation has been used with apparent success in the treatment of faecal incontinence. However, standards of treatment are still lacking and the magnitude of alleged benefits has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of electrical stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 13 March 2007) and reference lists of potentially eligible articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating electrical stimulation in adults with faecal incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the included trials. A wide range of outcome measures were considered. MAIN RESULTS: Four eligible trials with 260 participants were identified. Findings from one trial suggest that electrical stimulation with anal biofeedback and exercises provides more short-term benefits than vaginal biofeedback and exercises for women with obstetric-related faecal incontinence. Another study found contradictory results, with no added benefit from electrical stimulation over biofeedback and exercises alone. Although all trials report that patient's symptoms are generally improved, it is not clear that this is the effect of electrical stimulation. No further conclusions could be drawn from the data available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there are insufficient data to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn on the effects of electrical stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence. There is a suggestion that electrical stimulation may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. Larger, more generalisable trials are needed.
BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a particularly embarrassing and distressing condition with significant medical, social and economic implications. Electrical stimulation has been used with apparent success in the treatment of faecal incontinence. However, standards of treatment are still lacking and the magnitude of alleged benefits has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of electrical stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 13 March 2007) and reference lists of potentially eligible articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating electrical stimulation in adults with faecal incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the included trials. A wide range of outcome measures were considered. MAIN RESULTS: Four eligible trials with 260 participants were identified. Findings from one trial suggest that electrical stimulation with anal biofeedback and exercises provides more short-term benefits than vaginal biofeedback and exercises for women with obstetric-related faecal incontinence. Another study found contradictory results, with no added benefit from electrical stimulation over biofeedback and exercises alone. Although all trials report that patient's symptoms are generally improved, it is not clear that this is the effect of electrical stimulation. No further conclusions could be drawn from the data available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there are insufficient data to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn on the effects of electrical stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence. There is a suggestion that electrical stimulation may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. Larger, more generalisable trials are needed.
Authors: Michael Probst; Helen Pages; Jürgen F Riemann; Axel Eickhoff; Franz Raulf; Gerd Kolbert Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Tanja Fehm; Frederik A Stübs; Martin C Koch; Peter Mallmann; Christian Dannecker; Anna Dietl; Anna Sevnina; Franziska Mergel; Laura Lotz; Anne Ehret; Daniel Gantert; Franca Martignoni; Jan-Philipp Cieslik; Jan Menke; Olaf Ortmann; Carmen Stromberger; Karin Oechsle; Beate Hornemann; Friederike Mumm; Christoph Grimm; Alina Sturdza; Edward Wight; Kristina Loessl; Michael Golatta; Volker Hagen; Timm Dauelsberg; Ingo Diel; Karsten Münstedt; Eberhard Merz; Dirk Vordermark; Katja Lindel; Christian Wittekind; Volkmar Küppers; Ralph Lellé; Klaus Neis; Henrik Griesser; Birgit Pöschel; Manfred Steiner; Ulrich Freitag; Tobias Gilster; Alexander Schmittel; Michael Friedrich; Heidemarie Haase; Marion Gebhardt; Ludwig Kiesel; Michael Reinhardt; Michael Kreißl; Marianne Kloke; Lars-Christian Horn; Regina Wiedemann; Simone Marnitz; Anne Letsch; Isabella Zraik; Bernhard Mangold; Jochen Möckel; Céline Alt; Pauline Wimberger; Peter Hillemanns; Kerstin Paradies; Alexander Mustea; Dominik Denschlag; Ulla Henscher; Reina Tholen; Simone Wesselmann; Matthias W Beckmann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.915