BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biofeedback therapy (BFT) can be unsuccessful in constipated patients, even those with pelvic floor dysfunction. Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) has been introduced as a novel therapeutic modality in patients with chronic constipation, especially those who have rectal hyposensitivity. We evaluated the efficacy of EST based on five years' clinical experience. METHODS: From January 2002 to February 2007, 159 patients underwent EST. After exclusion of 12 drop-outs, 147 (M:F = 61:86, 49 ± 17 years) finished all treatment sessions. Among them, 88 (M:F = 29:59, 49 ± 17 years) were refractory to BFT without rectal hyposensitivity (RH), and 59 (M:F = 32:27, 54 ± 17 years) were those with RH. RESULTS: The overall response to EST was 59.2% (87/147) by per-protocol analysis. In the EST-responsive group, overall satisfaction improved significantly (from 7.3 ± 3.0 to 4.3 ± 2.5, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the response rate was 64.8% (57/88) in patients refractory to BFT without RH, and 50.8% (30/59) in those with RH. CONCLUSIONS: EST may have additional therapeutic efficacy in patients who are refractory to BFT. EST may also be effective in patients with RH, including restoration of rectal sensation. Therefore, EST could be considered as an alternative choice in patients refractory to BFT and with or without RH.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biofeedback therapy (BFT) can be unsuccessful in constipatedpatients, even those with pelvic floor dysfunction. Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) has been introduced as a novel therapeutic modality in patients with chronic constipation, especially those who have rectal hyposensitivity. We evaluated the efficacy of EST based on five years' clinical experience. METHODS: From January 2002 to February 2007, 159 patients underwent EST. After exclusion of 12 drop-outs, 147 (M:F = 61:86, 49 ± 17 years) finished all treatment sessions. Among them, 88 (M:F = 29:59, 49 ± 17 years) were refractory to BFT without rectal hyposensitivity (RH), and 59 (M:F = 32:27, 54 ± 17 years) were those with RH. RESULTS: The overall response to EST was 59.2% (87/147) by per-protocol analysis. In the EST-responsive group, overall satisfaction improved significantly (from 7.3 ± 3.0 to 4.3 ± 2.5, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the response rate was 64.8% (57/88) in patients refractory to BFT without RH, and 50.8% (30/59) in those with RH. CONCLUSIONS: EST may have additional therapeutic efficacy in patients who are refractory to BFT. EST may also be effective in patients with RH, including restoration of rectal sensation. Therefore, EST could be considered as an alternative choice in patients refractory to BFT and with or without RH.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biofeedback; Constipation; Electric stimulation therapy
Authors: M P Terra; A C Dobben; B Berghmans; M Deutekom; C G M I Baeten; L W M Janssen; G E E Boeckxstaens; A F Engel; R J F Felt-Bersma; J F M Slors; M F Gerhards; A B Bijnen; E Everhardt; W R Schouten; P M M Bossuyt; J Stoker Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Jonas F Schiemer; Axel Heimann; Karin H Somerlik-Fuchs; Roman Ruff; Klaus-Peter Hoffmann; Jan Baumgart; Manfred Berres; Hauke Lang; Werner Kneist Journal: J Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.924
Authors: Bing Yan Gong; Hong Mei Ma; Xiao Ying Zang; Si Yuan Wang; Yi Zhang; Nan Jiang; Xi Peng Zhang; Yue Zhao Journal: J Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 4.924