OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare four methods of biofeedback therapy for patients with faecal incontinence (FI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with FI who were ineligible for surgical management were prospectively randomized using a computer generated randomization method into one of four protocols: 1, out-patient intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback training (EMG); 2, EMG plus intrarectal balloon training (BT); 3, EMG plus a home trainer (HT); and 4, EMG, BT and HT. All patients received weekly, 1 h, out-patient biofeedback training. Success for patients with FI was measured by a reduction in incontinent episodes (days/week). In all instances, patients maintained a daily log in which documentation was recorded regarding each bowel evacuation. RESULTS:Forty patients were randomized into one of the four groups. Six patients withdrew after one session and were not included in the analysis. Therefore, 34 patients (23 female and 11 male) with a mean incontinence score of 12 (range 7-14) were randomized to one of the four groups (n=8, 8, 8, and 10, respectively). There was a statistically significant reduction in incontinent episodes for all groups. However, there were no significant differences in treatment outcome found in comparisons among the four groups. CONCLUSION:Biofeedback therapy significantly improves FI. Moreover, EMG training was as effective alone as was the addition of HT, BT or both for the treatment of FI.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare four methods of biofeedback therapy for patients with faecal incontinence (FI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with FI who were ineligible for surgical management were prospectively randomized using a computer generated randomization method into one of four protocols: 1, out-patient intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback training (EMG); 2, EMG plus intrarectal balloon training (BT); 3, EMG plus a home trainer (HT); and 4, EMG, BT and HT. All patients received weekly, 1 h, out-patient biofeedback training. Success for patients with FI was measured by a reduction in incontinent episodes (days/week). In all instances, patients maintained a daily log in which documentation was recorded regarding each bowel evacuation. RESULTS: Forty patients were randomized into one of the four groups. Six patients withdrew after one session and were not included in the analysis. Therefore, 34 patients (23 female and 11 male) with a mean incontinence score of 12 (range 7-14) were randomized to one of the four groups (n=8, 8, 8, and 10, respectively). There was a statistically significant reduction in incontinent episodes for all groups. However, there were no significant differences in treatment outcome found in comparisons among the four groups. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback therapy significantly improves FI. Moreover, EMG training was as effective alone as was the addition of HT, BT or both for the treatment of FI.
Authors: S S C Rao; M A Benninga; A E Bharucha; G Chiarioni; C Di Lorenzo; W E Whitehead Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 3.598