Literature DB >> 23328298

Biofeedback therapy for defecatory dysfunction: "real life" experience.

Daniela Jodorkovsky1, Kerry B Dunbar, Susan L Gearhart, Ellen M Stein, John O Clarke.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biofeedback therapy (BF) is a well-established treatment modality for patients with dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence (FI). Randomized controlled trials from highly specialized tertiary care centers report response rates of 70% to 80% for dyssynergic defecation and 55% to 75% for FI. Whether this therapy is as successful outside of clinical trials or specialized biofeedback referral centers remains unclear. AIM: Our primary aim was to determine what percentage of patients referred for BF actually complete therapy and identify barriers to treatment. Our secondary aim was to determine the clinical response rate in a heterogeneous population of patients undergoing BF at our institution and a variety of regional locations.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent high resolution anorectal manometry between 2007 and 2010 for symptoms of defecatory dysfunction. BF was recommended at the time of manometry analysis based on findings of dyssynergy, impaired or heightened rectal sensation, or poor augmentation of sphincter on squeeze maneuvers. Clinical response was recorded after a course of BF (≥ 5 sessions).
RESULTS: Two hundred three patients (78% female, 72% white; median age 52) underwent anorectal manometry for symptoms of constipation (130), FI (54), combination (12), and rectal pain (7). BF was recommended in 119 cases (58.6%): constipation (80), FI (27), combination (9), and rectal pain (3). Only 39 out of 80 (48%) patients with constipation ultimately underwent BF. Of the 27 FI cases, only 12 (44%) patients underwent BF. Barriers to BF included lack of insurance coverage, distance to local treatment facilities, and acute medical issues taking precedence. Of those who underwent at least 5 BF sessions, subjective short-term response rates based on patient opinion were 17/28 (60%) in the constipation group and 8/10 (80%) in the FI group. Age, sex, and race had no effect on whether the patients attended biofeedback or whether they responded to treatment. The location of BF also did not predict response to therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: In a heterogeneous patient population, less than half of patients recommended for BF ultimately underwent therapy. Despite this, the response rates in this small population undergoing BF in the "real world" are only slightly less than published randomized control trials. Prospective studies are warranted to further elucidate and eliminate barriers to BF, especially given that "real world" BF response rates may be comparable with those seen in clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23328298     DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e318266f43a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  10 in total

Review 1.  High resolution and high definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography: diagnostic advance or a new kid on the block?

Authors:  Yeong Yeh Lee; Askin Erdogan; Satish S C Rao
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2013-12

Review 2.  Current management of fecal incontinence: choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes.

Authors:  Julie Ann M Van Koughnett; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women.

Authors:  Isuzu Meyer; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2015-03

4.  Management of pelvic floor disorders: biofeedback and more.

Authors:  David Prichard; Adil E Bharucha
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12

5.  The Efficacy of Biofeedback Treatment in Patients with Fecal Incontinence.

Authors:  Ömer Öztürk; Yasemin Özin; Ferhat Bacaksız; İlyas Tenlik; Derya Arı; Volkan Gökbulut; Özlem Akdoğan; Mahmut Yüksel; Bayram Yeşil; Zeki Mesut Yalınkılıç
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 1.852

Review 6.  Biofeedback treatment of chronic constipation: myths and misconceptions.

Authors:  G Chiarioni
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 3.781

7.  Relationship between functional constipation and anal-retentive behavior features.

Authors:  Tonguç Utku Yılmaz; Halil İbrahim Taş; Ezgi Uçar; Cem Cerit; Altay Çelebi; Sertaç Ata Güler; Zafer Utkan
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2018-09-21

8.  Use of a motion-based digital therapeutic in women with fecal incontinence: A pilot study.

Authors:  Milena M Weinstein; Samantha J Pulliam; Laura Keyser; Holly E Richter
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2021-12-11       Impact factor: 2.367

Review 9.  Recent Updates on the Treatment of Constipation.

Authors:  Han Seung Ryu; Suck Chei Choi
Journal:  Intest Res       Date:  2015-10-15

10.  Technique of functional and motility test: how to perform biofeedback for constipation and fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Hyo Jeong Lee; Kee Wook Jung; Seung-Jae Myung
Journal:  J Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 4.924

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.