Kuan-Yin Lin1, Catherine L Granger1,2, Linda Denehy1, Helena C Frawley1,3. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Allied Health Research, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To identify, evaluate and synthesize the evidence examining the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on bowel dysfunction in patients who have undergone colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE 1950-2014; CINAHL 1982-2014; EMBASE 1980-2014; Scopus 1823-2014; PsycINFO 1806-2014; Web of Science 1970-2014; Cochrane Library 2014; PEDro 1999-2014) were systematically searched in March 2014. Reference lists of identified articles were cross referenced and hand searched. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case series were included if they investigated the effects of conservative treatments, including PFMT on bowel function in patients with colorectal cancer following surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Six prospective non-randomized studies and two retrospective studies were included. The mean (SD) NOS risk of bias score was 4.9 (1.2) out of 9; studies were limited by a lack of non-exposed cohort, lack of independent blinded assessment, heterogeneous treatment protocols, and lack of long-term follow-up. The majority of studies reported significant improvements in stool frequency, incontinence episodes, severity of fecal incontinence, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after PFMT. Meta-analysis was not possible due to lack of randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor muscle training for patients following surgery for colorectal cancer appears to be associated with improvements in bowel function and HRQoL. Results from non-randomized studies are promising but randomized controlled trials with sufficient power are needed to confirm the effectiveness of PFMT in this population.
AIMS: To identify, evaluate and synthesize the evidence examining the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on bowel dysfunction in patients who have undergone colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE 1950-2014; CINAHL 1982-2014; EMBASE 1980-2014; Scopus 1823-2014; PsycINFO 1806-2014; Web of Science 1970-2014; Cochrane Library 2014; PEDro 1999-2014) were systematically searched in March 2014. Reference lists of identified articles were cross referenced and hand searched. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case series were included if they investigated the effects of conservative treatments, including PFMT on bowel function in patients with colorectal cancer following surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Six prospective non-randomized studies and two retrospective studies were included. The mean (SD) NOS risk of bias score was 4.9 (1.2) out of 9; studies were limited by a lack of non-exposed cohort, lack of independent blinded assessment, heterogeneous treatment protocols, and lack of long-term follow-up. The majority of studies reported significant improvements in stool frequency, incontinence episodes, severity of fecal incontinence, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after PFMT. Meta-analysis was not possible due to lack of randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor muscle training for patients following surgery for colorectal cancer appears to be associated with improvements in bowel function and HRQoL. Results from non-randomized studies are promising but randomized controlled trials with sufficient power are needed to confirm the effectiveness of PFMT in this population.
Authors: Helena C Frawley; Kuan-Yin Lin; Catherine L Granger; Rosemary Higgins; Michael Butler; Linda Denehy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sadé L Assmann; Daniel Keszthelyi; Jos Kleijnen; Foteini Anastasiou; Elissa Bradshaw; Ann E Brannigan; Emma V Carrington; Giuseppe Chiarioni; Liora D A Ebben; Marc A Gladman; Yasuko Maeda; Jarno Melenhorst; Giovanni Milito; Jean W M Muris; Julius Orhalmi; Daniel Pohl; Yvonne Tillotson; Mona Rydningen; Saulius Svagzdys; Carolynne J Vaizey; Stephanie O Breukink Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 6.866
Authors: Mark Lawler; Deborah Alsina; Richard A Adams; Annie S Anderson; Gina Brown; Nicola S Fearnhead; Stephen W Fenwick; Stephen P Halloran; Daniel Hochhauser; Mark A Hull; Viktor H Koelzer; Angus G K McNair; Kevin J Monahan; Inke Näthke; Christine Norton; Marco R Novelli; Robert J C Steele; Anne L Thomas; Lisa M Wilde; Richard H Wilson; Ian Tomlinson Journal: Gut Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Anne Asnong; André D'Hoore; Marijke Van Kampen; Nele Devoogdt; An De Groef; Kim Sterckx; Hilde Lemkens; Albert Wolthuis; Yves Van Molhem; Bart Van Geluwe; Lynn Debrun; Inge Geraerts Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Eva M Zopf; Holger Schulz; Jonas Poeschko; Kerstin Aschenbroich; Thomas Wilhelm; Ernst Eypasch; Elmar Kleimann; Kai Severin; Jutta Benz; Enwu Liu; Wilhelm Bloch; Freerk T Baumann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anne Asnong; André D'Hoore; Marijke Van Kampen; Albert Wolthuis; Yves Van Molhem; Bart Van Geluwe; Nele Devoogdt; An De Groef; Ipek Guler Caamano Fajardo; Inge Geraerts Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 13.787