Biofeedback retraining in patients with functional constipation and paradoxical puborectalis contraction: comparison of anal manometry and sphincter electromyography for feedback

Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim was to determine whether specialist-led habit training using Habit Training with Biofeedback (HTBF) is more effective than specialist-led habit training alone (HT) for chronic constipation and whether outcomes of interventions are improved by stratification to HTBF or HT based on diagnosis (functional defaecation disorder vs. no functional defaecation disorder) by radio-physiological investigations (INVEST).

METHOD

This was a parallel three-arm randomized single-blinded controlled trial, permitting two randomized comparisons: HTBF versus HT alone; INVEST- versus no-INVEST-guided intervention. The inclusion criteria were age 18-70 years; attending specialist hospitals in England; self-reported constipation for >6 months; refractory to basic treatment. The main exclusions were secondary constipation and previous experience of the trial interventions. The primary outcome was the mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at 6 months on intention to treat. The secondary outcomes were validated disease-specific and psychological questionnaires and cost-effectiveness (based on EQ-5D-5L).

RESULTS

In all, 182 patients were randomized 3:3:2 (target 384): HT n = 68; HTBF n = 68; INVEST-guided treatment n = 46. All interventions had similar reductions (improvement) in the primary outcome at 6 months (approximately -0.8 points of a 4-point scale) with no statistically significant difference between HT and HTBF (-0.03 points; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.27; P = 0.85) or INVEST versus no-INVEST (0.22; -0.11 to 0.55; P = 0.19). Secondary outcomes showed a benefit for all interventions with no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of HTBF or INVEST compared with HT.

CONCLUSION

The results of the study at 6 months were inconclusive. However, with the caveat of under-recruitment and further attrition at 6 months, a simple, cheaper approach to intervention may be as clinically effective and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches.

Dyssynergic Defecation: A Comprehensive Review on Diagnosis and Management

About one-third of chronically constipated patients have an evacuation disorder, and dyssynergic defecation is a common cause of the evacuation disorder. In dyssynergic defecation, the coordination between abdominal and pelvic floor muscles during defecation is disrupted and patients cannot produce a normal bowel movement. The etiology of dyssynergic defecation is still unknown. Although a detailed history taking and a careful examination including digital rectal examination could be useful, other modalities such as anorectal manometry and balloon expulsion test are necessary for the diagnosis. Biofeedback therapy is one of the most effective and safe treatments. Here, we provide an overview of dyssynergic defecation as well as how to diagnose and manage this condition.

Non-drug therapies for the management of chronic constipation in adults: the CapaCiTY research programme including three RCTs

Background

Chronic constipation affects 1–2% of adults and significantly affects quality of life. Beyond the use of laxatives and other basic measures, there is uncertainty about management, including the value of specialist investigations, equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback, transanal irrigation and surgery.

Objectives

(1) To determine whether or not standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone, and whether or not outcomes of such specialist-led interventions are improved by stratification to habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or habit training alone based on prior knowledge of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology using standardised radiophysiological investigations; (2) to compare the impact of transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume and high-volume systems on patient disease-specific quality of life; and (3) to determine the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with controls at short-term follow-up.

Design

The Chronic Constipation Treatment Pathway (CapaCiTY) research programme was a programme of national recruitment with a standardised methodological framework (i.e. eligibility, baseline phenotyping and standardised outcomes) for three randomised trials: a parallel three-group trial, permitting two randomised comparisons (CapaCiTY trial 1), a parallel two-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 2) and a stepped-wedge (individual-level) three-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 3).

Setting

Specialist hospital centres across England, with a mix of urban and rural referral bases.

Participants

The main inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18–70 years, participant self-reported problematic constipation, symptom onset > 6 months before recruitment, symptoms meeting the American College of Gastroenterology’s constipation definition and constipation that failed treatment to a minimum basic standard. The main exclusion criteria were secondary constipation and previous experience of study interventions.

Interventions

CapaCiTY trial 1: group 1 – standardised specialist-led habit training alone (n = 68); group 2 – standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (n = 68); and group 3 – standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided treatment (n = 46) (allocation ratio 3 : 3 : 2, respectively). CapaCiTY trial 2: transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume (group 1, n = 30) or high-volume (group 2, n = 35) systems (allocation ratio 1 : 1). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy performed immediately (n = 9) and after 12 weeks’ (n = 10) and after 24 weeks’ (n = 9) waiting time (allocation ratio 1 : 1 : 1, respectively).

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were standardised outcomes for all three trials. The primary clinical outcome was mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at the 6-month, 3-month or 24-week follow-up. The secondary clinical outcomes were a range of validated disease-specific and psychological scoring instrument scores. For cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-year estimates were determined from individual participant-level cost data and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, data. Participant experience was investigated through interviews and qualitative analysis.

Results

A total of 275 participants were recruited. Baseline phenotyping demonstrated high levels of symptom burden and psychological morbidity. CapaCiTY trial 1: all interventions (standardised specialist-led habit training alone, standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback and standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided habit training alone or habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback) led to similar reductions in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (approximately –0.8 points), with no statistically significant difference between habit training alone and habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (–0.03 points, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.27 points; p = 0.8445) or between standardised radiophysiological investigations and no standardised radiophysiological investigations (0.22 points, 95% confidence interval –0.11 to 0.55 points; p = 0.1871). Secondary outcomes reflected similar levels of benefit for all interventions. There was no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or stratification by standardised radiophysiological investigations compared with habit training alone (with the probability that habit training alone is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gain; p = 0.83). Participants reported mixed experiences and similar satisfaction in all groups in the qualitative interviews. CapaCiTY trial 2: at 3 months, there was a modest reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score, from a mean of 2.4 to 2.2 points (i.e. a reduction of 0.2 points), in the low-volume transanal irrigation group compared with a larger mean reduction of 0.6 points in the high-volume transanal irrigation group (difference –0.37 points, 95% confidence interval –0.89 to 0.15 points). The majority of participants preferred high-volume transanal irrigation, with substantial crossover to high-volume transanal irrigation during follow-up. Compared with low-volume transanal irrigation, high-volume transanal irrigation had similar costs (median difference –£8, 95% confidence interval –£240 to £221) and resulted in significantly higher quality of life (0.093 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval 0.016 to 0.175 quality-adjusted life-years). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy resulted in a substantial short-term mean reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (–1.09 points, 95% confidence interval –1.76 to –0.41 points) and beneficial changes in all other outcomes; however, significant increases in cost (£5012, 95% confidence interval £4446 to £5322) resulted in only modest increases in quality of life (0.043 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.093 quality-adjusted life-years), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £115,512 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Excluding poor recruitment and underpowering of clinical effectiveness analyses, several themes emerge: (1) all interventions studied have beneficial effects on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in the short term; (2) a simpler, cheaper approach to nurse-led behavioural interventions appears to be at least as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches (including prior investigation); (3) high-volume transanal irrigation is preferred by participants and has better clinical effectiveness than low-volume transanal irrigation systems; and (4) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in highly selected participants confers a very significant short-term reduction in symptoms, with low levels of harm but little effect on general quality of life.

Limitations

All three trials significantly under-recruited [CapaCiTY trial 1, n = 182 (target 394); CapaCiTY trial 2, n = 65 (target 300); and CapaCiTY trial 3, n = 28 (target 114)]. The numbers analysed were further limited by loss before primary outcome.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11791740, ISRCTN11093872 and ISRCTN11747152.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Improvement of Patient Satisfaction and Anorectal Manometry Parameters After Biofeedback Therapy in Patients with Different Types of Dyssynergic Defecation

Biofeedback is a well-known and effective treatment for patients with fecal evacuation disorder (FED). The main purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome and the effects of biofeedback therapy on physiological parameters as assessed by manometry in patients with FED. Data from 114 consecutive patients with FED who underwent biofeedback therapy in Sara Gastrointestinal clinic in Tehran, Iran during 2015-2018 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. All participants underwent a comprehensive evaluation of anorectal function that included anorectal manometry and a balloon expulsion test at the baseline and after biofeedback therapy. Maximum anal squeeze pressure and sustained anal squeeze pressure were improved up to 100% and 94.7% of normal values in the patients after biofeedback, respectively (P < 0.001). First rectal sensation, was significantly decreased (25 ± 18.5 vs. 15.5 ± 5.2) while the maximum tolerable volume was significantly increased (233.6 ± 89.7 vs. 182.4 ± 23.1) after biofeedback therapy (P < 0.001). Type I dyssynergia was the most common type, effecting 82 cases (71.9%) of our patients. Dyssynergia parameters were improved 50-80% in 34 (41.5%) and 10 (31.3%) type I and non-type I patients, respectively. Over 80% improvement of dyssynergia parameters occurred in 48 (58.5%) and 22 (68.8%) type I and non-type I patients, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.3). In addition, the ability to reject the balloon was significantly better in post intervention measurements (P < 0.001). Biofeedback not only improves the symptoms in patients of FED but also reverses more than 80% the dyssynergic parameters of defecation. However, due to the general effectiveness of biofeedback treatment in different types of DD, there were no significant differences between their improvement scores.

Chronic Constipation in the Elderly Patient: Updates in Evaluation and Management

Chronic constipation (CC) is a common disorder in the elderly population globally and is associated with comorbidities and negative implications on the quality of life. Constipation prevalence varies in different studies, primarily owing to the nonuniformity of the diagnostic criteria. However, 15%-30% of individuals aged >60 years are diagnosed with CC. Primary care physicians are the main healthcare providers that manage constipation in elderly patients in parallel with increased population aging and increased prevalence of constipation. Physical inactivity, polypharmacy, chronic medical conditions, rectal hyposensitivity, and defecatory disorders all play a role in the pathogenesis of CC in elderly patients. Detailed anamnesis, particularly history related to chronic medication use, with digital rectal examination may assist in identifying constipation causes. Additionally, blood tests and colonoscopy may identify organic causes of CC. Physiologic tests (i.e., anorectal manometry, colonic transit time with radiopaque markers, and defecography) can evaluate the physiologic function of the colon, rectum, and anus. However, generally, there are several causes of constipation in older patients, and an individualized approach is recommended. Treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation is empiric, based on the stepwise approach. Lifestyle advice, adjustment of chronic medications, and prescription of laxatives are the first steps of management. Several laxatives are available, and the treatment is evolving in the last decade. Biofeedback is an effective therapy especially for defecatory disorders. This review aimed to summarize the most updated knowledge for primary care physicians in the approach and management of CC in elderly patients.

A Practical Guide to Biofeedback Therapy for Pelvic Floor Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biofeedback therapy (BFT) is effective for managing pelvic floor disorders (i.e., defecatory disorders and fecal incontinence). However, even in controlled clinical trials, only approximately 60% of patients with defecatory disorders experienced long-term improvement. The review serves to update practitioners on recent advances and to identify practical obstacles to providing biofeedback therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The efficacy and safety of biofeedback therapy have been evaluated in defecatory disorders, fecal incontinence, and levator ani syndrome. Recent studies looked at outcomes in specific patient sub-populations and predictors of a response to biofeedback therapy. Biofeedback therapy is effective for managing defecatory disorders, fecal incontinence, and levator ani syndrome. Patients who have a lower bowel satisfaction score and use digital maneuvers fare better. Biofeedback therapy is recommended for patients with fecal incontinence who do not respond to conservative management. A subset of patients with levator ani syndrome who have dyssynergic defecation are more likely to respond to biofeedback therapy.

Stepped-wedge randomised trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence.

Methods

An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates.

Discussion

An individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks).

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11747152. Registered on 30 September 2015. The trial was prospectively registered (first patient enrolled on 21 March 2016).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2456-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Review article: dyssynergic defaecation and biofeedback therapy in the pathophysiology and management of functional constipation

BACKGROUND

Functional constipation is a common clinical presentation in primary care. Functional defaecation disorders are defined as the paradoxical contraction or inadequate relaxation of the pelvic floor muscles during attempted defaecation (dyssynergic defaecation) and/or inadequate propulsive forces during attempted defaecation. Prompt diagnosis and management of dyssynergic defaecation is hindered by uncertainty regarding nomenclature, diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology and efficacy of management options such as biofeedback therapy.

AIM

To review the evidence pertaining to the pathophysiology of functional defaecation disorders and the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in the management of patients with dyssynergic defaecation and functional constipation.

METHODS

Relevant articles addressing functional defaecation disorders and the efficacy of biofeedback therapy in the management of dyssynergic defaecation and functional constipation were identified from a search of Pubmed, MEDLINE Ovid and the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

The prevalence of dyssynergic defaecation in patients investigated for chronic constipation is as many as 40%. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated major symptom improvement in 70%-80% of patients undergoing biofeedback therapy for chronic constipation resistant to standard medical therapy and have determined it to be superior to polyethylene glycol laxatives, diazepam or sham therapy. Long-term studies have shown 55%-82% of patients maintain symptom improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyssynergic defaecation is a common clinical condition in patients with chronic constipation not responding to conservative management. Biofeedback therapy appears to be a safe, successful treatment with sustained results for patients with dyssynergic defaecation. Further studies are required to standardise the diagnosis of dyssynergic defaecation in addition to employing systematic protocols for biofeedback therapy.

Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Constipation affects up to 20% of adults. Chronic constipation (CC) affects 1–2% of adults. Patient dissatisfaction is high; nearly 80% feel that laxative therapy is unsatisfactory and symptoms have significant impact on quality of life. There is uncertainty about the value of specialist investigations and whether equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback confer additional benefit when compared with specialist conservative advice.

Methods/design

A three-arm, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: to determine whether standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computerised biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone; to determine whether outcomes are improved by stratification based on prior investigation of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology. Primary outcome measure is response to treatment, defined as a 0.4-point (10% of scale) or greater reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation–Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) score 6 months after the end of treatment. Other outcomes up to 12 months include symptoms, quality of life, health economics, psychological health and qualitative experience.

Hypotheses: (1) habit training (HT) with computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (HTBF) results in an average reduction in PAC-QOL score of 0.4 points at 6 months compared to HT alone in unselected adults with CC, (2) stratification to either HT or HTBF informed by pathophysiological investigation (INVEST) results in an average 0.4-point reduction in PAC-QOL score at 6 months compared with treatment not directed by investigations (No-INVEST).

Inclusion: chronic constipation in adults (aged 18–70 years) defined by self-reported symptom duration of more than 6 months; failure of previous laxatives or prokinetics and diet and lifestyle modifications. Consenting participants (n = 394) will be randomised to one of three arms in an allocation ratio of 3:3:2: [1] habit training, [2] habit training and biofeedback or [3] investigation-led allocation to one of these arms. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis.

Discussion

This trial has the potential to answer some of the major outstanding questions in the management of chronic constipation, including whether costly invasive tests are warranted and whether computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback confers additional benefit to well-managed specialist advice alone.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11791740. Registered on 16 July 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1880-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of biofeedback therapy on anorectal physiological parameters among patients with fecal evacuation disorder

BACKGROUND

Though biofeedback therapy is often effective in patients with fecal evacuation disorder (FED), a common cause of chronic constipation (CC) in tertiary practice, data on anorectal physiological parameters following it are scanty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with FED with CC diagnosed by abnormalities in at least two of the three tests (anorectal manometry, defecography, and balloon expulsion test [BET]) undergoing biofeedback (two sessions per day, 30 min each, for 2 weeks) during a 3-year period were analyzed. Clinical evaluation, anorectal manometry (ARM), and BET were performed at the beginning and after biofeedback.

RESULTS

Incomplete evacuation 42/43 (98%), straining 40/43 (93%), and feeling of outlet obstruction 35/43 (81%) were the most common symptoms among these 43 patients (median age 44 years, range 18-76, 30 [71%] male). All the three tests (defecography, BET, and ARM) were abnormal in 17 (40%) patients and the others had two abnormal tests. Improvement in physiological parameters was noted following biofeedback (median residual anal pressure during defecation 99 mmHg (range 52-148) vs. 78 mmHg (37-182), p = 0.03; maximum intra-rectal pressure 60 mmHg (90-110) vs. 76 mmHg (31-178); p = 0.01; defecation index 1.1 (0.1-23.0) vs. 3.2 (0.5-29.0); p = 0.001). Dyssynergia on ARM and BET got corrected in 22/34 (65%) and 18/30 (60%) patients. At a 1-month follow up, 23/37 (62%) patients reported satisfactory symptomatic improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofeedback not only improves symptoms but also anorectal physiological parameters in patients with FED.

Functional Disorders of Constipation: Paradoxical Puborectalis Contraction and Increased Perineal Descent

Paradoxical puborectalis contraction (PPC) and increased perineal descent (IPD) are subclasses of obstructive defecation. Often these conditions coexist, which can make the evaluation, workup, and treatment difficult. After a thorough history and examination, workup begins with utilization of proven diagnostic modalities such as cinedefecography and anal manometry. Advancements in technology have increased the surgeon's diagnostic armamentarium. Biofeedback and pelvic floor therapy have proven efficacy for both conditions as first-line treatment. In circumstances where PPC is refractory to biofeedback therapy, botulinum toxin injection is recommended. Historically, pelvic floor repair has been met with suboptimal results. In IPD, surgical therapy now is directed toward the potentially attendant abnormalities such as rectoanal intussusception and rectal prolapse. When these associated abnormalities are not present, an ostomy should be considered in patients with IPD as well as medically refractory PPC.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation

Dyssynergic defecation is common and affects up to one half of patients with chronic constipation. This acquired behavioral problem is due to the inability to coordinate the abdominal and pelvic floor muscles to evacuate stools. A detailed history, prospective stool diaries, and a careful digital rectal examination will not only identify the nature of bowel dysfunction, but also raise the index of suspicion for this evacuation disorder. Anorectal physiology tests and balloon expulsion test are essential for a diagnosis. Newer techniques such as high-resolution manometry and magnetic resonance defecography can provide mechanistic insights. Recently, randomized controlled trials have shown that biofeedback therapy is more effective than laxatives and other modalities, both in the short term and long term, without side effects. Also, symptom improvements correlated with changes in underlying pathophysiology. Biofeedback therapy has been recommended as the first-line of treatment for dyssynergic defecation. Here, we provide an overview of the burden of illness and pathophysiology of dyssynergic defecation, and how to diagnose and treat this condition with biofeedback therapy.

Apex technique in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome associated with rectal intussusception and full rectal mucosa prolapse

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study was to demonstrate the use of a modified stapling technique, called the apex technique, to treat rectal intussusception and full rectal mucosal prolapse. It was conducted as a retrospective study at 3 centers (2 in Brazil and 1 in Chile).

TECHNIQUE

The apex technique is performed by using a HEM/EEA-33 stapler. A pursestring suture is placed at the apex of the prolapse, on the 4 quadrants, independent of the distance to the dentate line. A second pursestring is then placed to define the band of rectal mucosa to be symmetrically resected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included width of the resected full-thickness rectal wall; the intensity of postoperative pain on a visual analog scale from 1 to 10; full mucosal prolapse and rectal intussusception assessed by physical examination, cinedefecography, or echodefecography; and change in the constipation scale.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients (30 women/15 men; mean age, 59.5 years) with rectal intussusception and full mucosal prolapse were included. The median operative time was 17 (range, 15-30) minutes. Bleeding after stapler fire requiring manual suture occurred in 3 patients (6.7%); 25 (55.6%) patients reported having no postoperative pain. Hospital stay was 24 hours. The mean width of the resected rectal wall was 5.9 (range, 5.0-7.5) cm. Stricture at the staple line was seen in 4 patients, of whom 1 required dilation under anesthesia. The median follow-up time was 120 (range, 90-120) days. A small residual prolapse was identified in 6 (13.3%) patients. Imaging demonstrated complete disappearance of rectal intussusception in all patients, and the mean postoperative constipation score decreased from 13 (range, 8-15) to 5 (range, 3-7).

CONCLUSIONS

The apex technique appears to be a safe, quickly performed, and low-cost method for the treatment of rectal intussusception. In this series, imaging examinations showed the disappearance of rectal intussusception, and a significant decrease in constipation score suggested improvement in functional outcomes.

Biofeedback for treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation in adults

BACKGROUND

Biofeedback therapy has been used to treat the symptoms of people with chronic constipation referred to specialist services within secondary and tertiary care settings. However, different methods of biofeedback are used within different centres and the magnitude of suggested benefits and comparable effectiveness of different methods of biofeedback has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of biofeedback for the treatment of chronic idiopathic (functional) constipation in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to 16 December 2013: CENTRAL, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Review Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, and PsychINFO. Hand searching of conference proceedings and the reference lists of relevant articles was also undertaken.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials evaluating biofeedback in adults with chronic idiopathic constipation were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was global or clinical improvement as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, and adverse events as defined by the included studies. Where possible, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen eligible studies were identified with a total of 931 participants. Most participants had chronic constipation and dyssynergic defecation. Sixteen of the trials were at high risk of bias for blinding. Attrition bias (4 trials) and other potential bias (5 trials) was also noted. Due to differences between study populations, the heterogeneity of the different samples and large range of different outcome measures, meta-analysis was not possible. Different effect sizes were reported ranging from 40 to 100% of patients who received biofeedback improving following the intervention. While electromyograph (EMG) biofeedback was the most commonly used, there is a lack of evidence as to whether any one method of biofeedback is more effective than any other method of biofeedback. We found low or very low quality evidence that biofeedback is superior to oral diazepam, sham biofeedback and laxatives. One study (n = 60) found EMG biofeedback to be superior to oral diazepam. Seventy per cent (21/30) of biofeedback patients had improved constipation at three month follow-up compared to 23% (7/30) of diazepam patients (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.51 to 5.98). One study compared manometry biofeedback to sham biofeedback or standard therapy consisting of diet, exercise and laxatives. The mean number of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week at three months was 4.6 in the biofeedback group compared to 2.8 in the sham biofeedback group (MD 1.80, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.35; 52 patients). The mean number of CSBM per week at three months was 4.6 in the biofeedback group compared to 1.9 in the standard care group (MD 2.70, 95% CI 1.99 to 3.41; 49 patients). Another study (n = 109) compared EMG biofeedback to conventional treatment with laxatives and dietary and lifestyle advice. This study found that at both 6 and 12 months 80% (43/54) of biofeedback patients reported clinical improvement compared to 22% (12/55) laxative-treated patients (RR 3.65, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.13). Some surgical procedures (partial division of puborectalis and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR)) were reported to be superior to biofeedback, although with a high risk of adverse events in the surgical groups (wound infection, faecal incontinence, pain, and bleeding that required further surgical intervention). Successful treatment, defined as a decrease in the obstructed defecation score of > 50% at one year was reported in 33% (3/39) of EMG biofeedback patients compared to 82% (44/54) of STARR patients (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.65). For the other study the mean constipation score at one year was 16.1 in the balloon sensory biofeedback group compared to 10.5 in the partial division of puborectalis surgery group (MD 5.60, 95% CI 4.67 to 6.53; 40 patients). Another study (n = 60) found no significant difference in efficacy did not demonstrate the superiority of a surgical intervention (posterior myomectomy of internal anal sphincter and puborectalis) over biofeedback. Conflicting results were found regarding the comparative effectiveness of biofeedback and botulinum toxin-A. One small study (48 participants) suggested that botulinum toxin-A injection may have short term benefits over biofeedback, but the relative effects of treatments were uncertain at one year follow-up. No adverse events were reported for biofeedback, although this was not specifically reported in the majority of studies. The results of all of these studies need to be interpreted with caution as GRADE analyses rated the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes (i.e. clinical or global improvement as defined by the studies) as low or very low due to high risk of bias (i.e. open label studies, self-selection bias, incomplete outcome data, and baseline imbalance) and imprecision (i.e. sparse data).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient evidence to allow any firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of biofeedback for the management of people with chronic constipation. We found low or very low quality evidence from single studies to support the effectiveness of biofeedback for the management of people with chronic constipation and dyssynergic defecation. However, the majority of trials are of poor methodological quality and subject to bias. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials with adequate sample sizes, validated outcome measures (especially patient reported outcome measures) and long-term follow-up are required to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Primary Care Management of Chronic Constipation in Asia: The ANMA Chronic Constipation Tool

Chronic constipation (CC) may impact on quality of life. There is substantial patient dissatisfaction; possible reasons are failure to recognize underlying constipation, inappropriate dietary advice and inadequate treatment. The aim of these practical guidelines intended for primary care physicians, and which are based on Asian perspectives, is to provide an approach to CC that is relevant to the existing health-care infrastructure. Physicians should not rely on infrequent bowel movements to diagnose CC as many patients have one or more bowel movement a day. More commonly, patients present with hard stool, straining, incomplete feeling, bloating and other dyspeptic symptoms. Physicians should consider CC in these situations and when patients are found to use laxative containing supplements. In the absence of alarm features physicians may start with a 2-4 week therapeutic trial of available pharmacological agents including osmotic, stimulant and enterokinetic agents. Where safe to do so, physicians should consider regular (as opposed to on demand dosing), combination treatment and continuous treatment for at least 4 weeks. If patients do not achieve satisfactory response, they should be referred to tertiary centers for physiological evaluation of colonic transit and pelvic floor function. Surgical referral is a last resort, which should be considered only after a thorough physiological and psychological evaluation.

Management of patients with rectocele, multiple pelvic floor dysfunctions and obstructed defecation syndrome

CONTEXT

Management of patients with obstructed defecation syndrome is still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the efficacy of clinical, clinical treatment followed by biofeedback, and surgical treatment in patients with obstructed defecation, rectocele and multiple dysfunctions evaluated with echodefecography.

METHODS

The study included 103 females aged 26-84 years with obstructed defecation, grade-II/III rectocele and multiple dysfunctions on echodefecography. Patients were distributed into three treatment groups and constipation scores were assigned. Group I: 34 (33%) patients with significant improvement of symptoms through clinical management only. Group II: 14 (14%) with improvement through clinical treatment plus biofeedback. Group III: 55 (53%) referred to surgery due to treatment failure.

RESULTS

Group I: 20 (59%) patients had grade-II rectocele, 14 (41%) grade-III. Obstructed defecation syndrome was associated with intussusception (41%), mucosal prolapse (41%), anismus (29%), enterocele (9%) or 2 dysfunctions (23%). The average constipation score decreased significantly from 11 to 5. Group II: 11 (79%) grade-II rectocele, 3 (21%) grade-III, associated with intussusception (7%), mucosal prolapse (43%), anismus (71%) or 2 dysfunctions (29%). There was significant decrease in constipation score from 13 to 6. Group III: 8 (15%) grade-II rectocele, 47 (85%) grade-III, associated with intussusception (42%), mucosal prolapse (40%) or 2 dysfunctions (32%). The constipation score remained unchanged despite clinical treatment and biofeedback. Twenty-three underwent surgery had a significantly decrease in constipation score from 12 to 4. The remaining 32 (31%) patients which 22 refused surgery, 6 had low anal pressure and 4 had slow transit.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 50% of patients with obstructed defecation, rectocele and multiple dysfunctions presented a satisfactory response to clinical treatment and/or biofeedback. Surgical repair was mainly required in patients with grade-III rectocele whose constipation scores remained high despite all efforts.

A randomized controlled trial of anorectal biofeedback for constipation

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study were: (1) to examine the efficacy of anorectal biofeedback (AB) for constipation compared to a biofeedback control (BC) treatment and (2) to examine the extent to which self-reported childhood sexual/physical abuse predicted biofeedback outcome.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia were randomized to either (1) an AB arm, where patients learned to isolate the anal sphincter using an electromyography probe, or (2) a BC arm that controlled for the nonspecific effects of biofeedback, where patients learned to relax trapezius or temporalis muscles with EMG feedback. Both treatments were delivered by registered nurses for six sessions. Prior to randomization and post-treatment, patients completed the validated Constipation Severity Instrument and two measures of quality of life (QOL), the Irritable Bowel Syndrome-QOL, and the SF-36. Generalized estimating equations examined the within-group and between-group differences over time.

RESULTS

Pre- and post-treatment data were obtained for six AB and nine BC patients. AB patients' overall constipation severity scores decreased by 35.5% (vs. 15.3%), and their obstructive defecation symptom scores decreased by 37.9% (vs. 19.7%) compared to BC. A similar pattern was shown on the IBS-QOL. On the SF-36 Mental Health Composite (MCS), AB scores improved 28.0% compared to BC scores, which worsened 12.7%. Those without (vs. with) a childhood sexual/physical abuse history showed improvement on the MCS post-biofeedback.

CONCLUSIONS

While our sample was statistically underpowered, AB produced clinical improvements in constipation severity and QOL.

Biofeedback for the treatment of female pelvic floor muscle dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Biofeedback (BF) has been widely used in the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunctions, mainly by promoting patient learning about muscle contraction with no side effects. However, its effectiveness remains poorly understood with some studies suggesting that BF offers no advantage over the isolated pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). The main objective of this study was to systematically review available randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of BF in female pelvic floor dysfunction treatment. Trials were electronically searched and rated for quality by use of the PEDro scale (values of 0-10). Randomized controlled trials assessing the training of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) using BF in women with PFM dysfunction were selected. Outcomes were converted to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Trials were pooled with software used to prepare and update Cochrane reviews. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Twenty-two trials with 1,469 patients that analyzed BF in the treatment of urinary, anorectal, and/or sexual dysfunctions were included. PFMT alone led to a superior but not significant difference in the function of PFM when compared to PFMT with BF, by using vaginal measurement in the short and intermediate term: 9.89 (95 % CI -5.05 to 24.83) and 15.03 (95 % CI -9.71 to 39.78), respectively. We found a few and nonhomogeneous studies addressing anorectal and sexual function, which do not provide the cure rate calculations. Limitations of this review are the low quality and heterogeneity of the studies, involving the usage of distinct protocols of interventions, and various and different outcome measures. The results of this systematic review suggest that PFMT with BF is not more effective than other conservative treatments for female PFM dysfunction.

Excellent response rate of anismus to botulinum toxin if rectal prolapse misdiagnosed as anismus ('pseudoanismus') is excluded

AIM

Anismus causes obstructed defecation as a result of inappropriate contraction of the puborectalis/external sphincter. Proctographic failure to empty after 30 s is used as a simple surrogate for simultaneous electromyography/proctography. Botulinum toxin is theoretically attractive but efficacy is variable. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of botulinum toxin to treat obstructed defecation caused by anismus.

METHOD

Botulinum toxin was administered, under local anaesthetic, into the puborectalis/external sphincter of patients with proctographic anismus. Responders (resolution followed by recurrence of obstructed defecation over a 1- to 2-month period) underwent repeat injection. Nonresponders underwent rectal examination under anaesthetic (EUA). EUA-diagnosed rectal prolapse was graded using the Oxford Prolapse Grade 1-5.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were treated with botulinum toxin. Twenty-two (39%) responded initially and 21/22 (95%) underwent repeat treatment. At a median follow up of 19.2 (range, 7.0-30.4) months, 20/21 (95%) had a sustained response and required no further treatment. Isolated obstructed defecation symptoms (OR = 7.8, P = 0.008), but not proctographic or physiological factors, predicted response on logistic regression analysis. In 33 (97%) of 34 nonresponders, significant abnormalities were demonstrated at EUA: 31 (94%) had a grade 3-5 rectal prolapse, one had internal anal sphincter myopathy and one had a fissure. Exclusion of these alternative diagnoses revised the initial response rate to 96%.

CONCLUSION

Simple proctographic criteria overdiagnose anismus and underdiagnose rectal prolapse. This explains the published variable response to botulinum toxin. Failure to respond should prompt EUA seeking undiagnosed rectal prolapse. A response to an initial dose of botulinum toxin might be considered a more reliable diagnosis of anismus than proctography.

Comparative study between surgical and non-surgical treatment of anismus in patients with symptoms of obstructed defecation: a prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

This study came to compare the results of biofeedback retraining biofeedback (BFB), botulinum toxin botulinum type A (BTX-A) injection and partial division of puborectalis (PDPR) in the treatment of anismus patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated for anismus fulfilled Rome II criteria for functional constipation at our institution were evaluated for inclusion. Participants were randomly allocated to receive BFB, BTX-A injection, and PDPR. All patients underwent anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, defecography, and electromyography activity of the anal sphincter. Follow up was conducted weekly in the first month then monthly for about 1 year. Study variables included clinical improvement, patient satisfaction, and objective improvement.

RESULTS

Sixty patients with anismus were randomized and completed the study. The groups differed significantly regarding clinical improvement at 1 month (50% for BFB, 75%BTX-A injection, and 95% for PDPR, P = 0.006) and differences persisted at 1 year (30% for BFB, 35%BTX-A injection, and 70% for PDPR, P = 0.02). Constipation score of the patients significantly improved postPDPR and BTX-A injection. Manometric relaxation was achieved significantly in the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Biofeedback retraining has a limited therapeutic effect, BTX-A injection seems to be successful for temporary treatment but PDPR is found to be an effective with lower morbidity in contrast to its higher success rate in treating anismus.

Paradoxical puborectalis contraction and increased perineal descent

Paradoxical puborectalis contraction and increased perineal descent are two forms of functional constipation presenting as challenging diagnostic and treatment dilemmas to the clinician. In the evaluation of these disorders, the clinician should take special care to exclude anatomic disorders leading to constipation. Physical examination is supplemented by additional diagnostic modalities such as cinedefecography, electromyography, manometry, and pudendal nerve tefninal motor latency. Generally, these investigations should be used in combination with the two playing the more relied upon techniques. Treatment is typically conservative with biofeedback playing a principal role with favorable results when patient compliance is emphasized. When considering paradoxical puborectalis contraction, failure of biofeedback is usually augmented with botulinum toxin injection. Increased perineal descent is generally treated with biofeedback and perineal support maneuvers. Surgery has little or no role in these conditions. The patient who insists on surgical intervention for either of these two conditions should be offered a stoma.

Biofeedback therapy in fecal incontinence and constipation

We examine the collected evidence for efficacy of biofeedback therapy (BFT) in incontinence and constipation by means of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PubMed search was performed to identify treatment trials that match quality criteria (adequate control groups, randomization). They were entered into meta-analyses using fixed effect models and computing odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment effects. For constipation, eight BFT trials were identified. In four trials, electromyographic (EMG) BFT was compared to non-BFT treatments (laxatives, placebo, sham training and botox injection), while in the remaining four studies EMG BFT was compared to other BFT (balloon pressure, verbal feedback) modes. Meta-analyses revealed superiority of BFT to non-BFT (OR: 3.657; 95% CI: 2.127-6.290, P < 0.001) but equal efficacy of EMG BFT to other BF applications (OR: 1.436; CI: 0.692-3.089; P = 0.319). For fecal incontinence, a total of 11 trials were identified, of which six compared BFT to other treatment options (sensory training, pelvic floor exercise and electrical stimulation) and five compared one BFT option to other modalities of BFT. BFT was equal effective than non-BFT therapy (OR: 1.189, CI: 0.689-2.051, P = 0.535). No difference was found when various modes BFT were compared (OR: 1.278, CI: 0.736-2.220, P = 0.384). Included trials showed a substantial lack of quality and harmonization, e.g. variable endpoints and missing psychological assessment across studies. BFT for pelvic floor dyssynergia shows substantial specific therapeutic effect while BFT for incontinence is still lacking evidence for efficacy. However, in both conditions the mode of BFT seems to play a minor role.

Comparative study between biofeedback retraining and botulinum neurotoxin in the treatment of anismus patients

PURPOSE

Anismus is a significant cause of chronic constipation. This study came to revive the results of BFB training and BTX-A injection in the treatment of anismus patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight patients with anismus (33 women; mean age 39.6 +/- 15.9) were included in this study. All patients fulfilled Rome II criteria for functional constipation. All patients underwent anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, defecography, and electromyography (EMG) activity of the EAS. All patients had non-relaxing puborectalis muscle. The patients were randomized into two groups. Group I patients received biofeedback therapy, two times per week for about 1 month. Group II patients were injected with BTX-A. Follow-up was conducted weekly in the first month then monthly for about 1 year.

RESULTS

In the BFB training group, three patients quit before the end of sessions with no improvement; initial improvement was recorded in 12 patients (50%) while long-term success was recorded in six patients (25%). In the BTX-A group, clinical improvement was recorded in 17 patients (70.83%), but the improvement persisted only in eight patients (33.3%). There is a significant difference between BTX-A group and BFB group regarding the initial success, but this significant difference disappeared at the end of follow-up. Manometric relaxation was achieved significantly post-BFB and post-BTX-A injection with no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofeedback training has a limited therapeutic effect on patients suffering from anismus. BTX-A injection seems to be successful for temporary treatment of anismus.

Dyssynergic defecation and biofeedback therapy

Constipation caused by dyssynergic defecation is common and affects up to one half of patients with this disorder. It is possible to diagnose this problem through history, prospective stool diaries, and anorectal physiologic tests. Randomized controlled trials have now established that biofeedback therapy is not only efficacious but superior to other modalities and that the symptom improvement is caused by a change in underlying pathophysiology. Development of user friendly approaches to biofeedback therapy and use of home biofeedback programs will significantly enhance the adoption of this treatment by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons.

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is a type of functional constipation. The effectiveness of biofeedback as a treatment remains unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review of all randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of biofeedback in adults with PFD was carried out. All online databases from 1950 to 2007 were searched. This was supplemented by hand searching references of retrieved articles.

RESULTS

Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three compared biofeedback with non-biofeedback treatments and four compared different biofeedback modalities. Electromyography feedback was most widely utilized. The trials were heterogeneous with varied inclusion criteria, treatment protocols and definitions of success. Most had methodological limitations. Quality of life and psychological morbidity were assessed rarely. Meta-analysis of the studies involving any form of biofeedback compared with any other treatment suggested that biofeedback conferred a sixfold increase in the odds of treatment success (odds ratio 5.861 (95 per cent confidence interval 2.175 to 15.794); random-effects model).

CONCLUSION

Although biofeedback is the recommended treatment for PFD, high-quality evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Meta-analysis of the available evidence suggests that biofeedback is the best option, but well designed trials that take into account quality of life and psychological morbidity are needed.

Biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation

Dyssynergic defecation is one of the most common forms of functional constipation both in children and adults; it is defined by incomplete evacuation of fecal material from the rectum due to paradoxical contraction or failure to relax pelvic floor muscles when straining to defecate. This is believed to be a behavioral disorder because there are no associated morphological or neurological abnormalities, and consequently biofeedback training has been recommended for treatment. Biofeedback involves the use of pressure measurements or averaged electromyographic activity within the anal canal to teach patients how to relax pelvic floor muscles when straining to defecate. This is often combined with teaching the patient more appropriate techniques for straining (increasing intra-abdominal pressure) and having the patient practice defecating a water filled balloon. In adults, randomized controlled trials show that this form of biofeedback is more effective than laxatives, general muscle relaxation exercises (described as sham biofeedback), and drugs to relax skeletal muscles. Moreover, its effectiveness is specific to patients who have dyssynergic defecation and not slow transit constipation. However, in children, no clear superiority for biofeedback compared to laxatives has been demonstrated. Based on three randomized controlled studies in the last two years, biofeedback appears to be the preferred treatment for dyssynergic defecation in adults.

Treatment of obstructed defecation

Obstructed defecation is a common problem that adversely affects the quality of life for many patients. Known causes of obstructed defecation include pelvic dyssynergy, rectocele, rectal intussusception, enterocele, pelvic organ prolapse, and overt rectal prolapse. Management of this condition requires an understanding of urinary, defecatory, and sexual function to achieve optimal outcomes. The goal of surgical treatment is to restore the various pelvic organs to their appropriate anatomic positions. However, there is a poor correlation between anatomic and functional results. It must be remembered that the pelvis contains many structures and that defects of pelvic support or function frequently affect other pelvic organs. Optimal outcomes can be achieved only by selecting appropriate treatment modalities that address all of the components of an individual patient's problem.

Responses of anal constipation to biofeedback treatment

OBJECTIVE

Biofeedback is considered an effective treatment for anal constipation, but a substantial proportion of patients fail to improve. Our aim was to identify the key predictors of outcome using a comprehensive standardized evaluation of anorectal function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the clinical and physiological data of 148 patients consecutively treated for constipation due to functional outlet obstruction by biofeedback. Clinical evaluation was performed by means of a structured questionnaire. Anorectal evaluation included anal pressure, neural reflexes, defecatory dynamics, rectal compliance, rectal sensitivity and balloon expulsion test. Biofeedback treatment was performed using a manometric technique. The clinical response to biofeedback treatment was evaluated as good (improvement of constipation) or poor (no improvement or worsening).

RESULTS

Of the 148 patients included, 112 (86 F, 26 M; age range 8-67 years) were followed-up for between 1 and 44 months, and 66% had a good response to treatment. The response depended on the severity of the defecatory dysfunction. Thus, lack of anal relaxation during straining and inability to evacuate a 1 ml intrarectal balloon were inversely related to physiological variables related to therapeutic success. Among the 49 patients with absent anal relaxation, 51% had a good response to treatment (versus 78% in patients with partial relaxation; p < 0.01), and among the 29 patients with failed balloon expulsion, 48% responded to treatment (versus 74% in patients able to evacuate > or = 1 ml intrarectal balloon; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the presence of negative predictors, biofeedback is a valuable treatment option in a substantial proportion of constipated patients.

Biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction in constipation

Pelvic floor dyssynergia is one of the commonest subtypes of constipation, and the conventional treatment (dietary fibre and laxatives) is often unsatisfactory. Recently biofeedback training has been introduced as an alternative treatment. The authors review the evidence for this approach and conclude that, although controlled studies are few and open to criticism, about two thirds of patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia should benefit from biofeedback training

Constipation caused by functional outlet obstruction

Functional constipation is a very common problem in Western societies. Functional outlet obstruction, part of the spectrum of functional constipation, is suspected when patients present with select symptoms. Diagnosis is commonly made with anorectal manometry, electromyography, and rectal evacuation tests. Abnormal test patterns include poor relaxation and contraction of the anal sphincter in response to attempted defecation and difficult rectal evacuation. Several treatment approaches have been tested in these patients. Biofeedback training is considered the most specific therapeutic modality, and it is particularly attractive because of its safety. This review provides an assessment of the diagnostic tests for functional outlet obstruction and summarizes current options for therapy.

Obstructed defecation

BACKGROUND

In the last decade our understanding of pelvic floor function and dysfunction has improved significantly. A more rational diagnostic and therapeutic approach is now possible for the group of patients with constipation due to obstructed defecation (OD).

METHODS

The review is based on a literature search using the PubMed database focusing mainly on recent literature addressing the subject.

RESULTS

Obstructed defecation occurs in about 7% of the adult population. Different pathophysiological mechanisms, either functional or anatomical, eventually lead to OD. Different tests (defecography, balloon evacuation test, manometry, electromyography, colonic transit time measurementmanometry) play an important role to quantify the problem. These tests are not without problems as abnormal results are also found in asymptomatic controls. Also, there is poor agreement between different tests and a poor correlation with symptomatology. Thus, for most syndromes conservative treatment including biofeedback is appropriate. Surgery can yield excellent results in selected cases.

CONCLUSION

Validation of scoring systems and quantitative tests is still needed. More uniform and strict criteria for anismus should be applied to make therapeutic approaches comparable. Appropriate selection of patients for surgery is the key to success.

Patient's perceptions of biofeedback therapy for obstructive defaecation

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcomes of a biofeedback treatment programme for obstructive defaecation up to five years after completion of treatment, reporting from the patients' perspective the subsequent progression of defaecation difficulties and the perceived usefulness of the biofeedback training and its components. METHODS: A biofeedback program for obstructive defaecation at a major hospital in Sydney provided 37 patients with reading material, taught defaecation techniques, and prescribed simulated defaecation and anal relaxation exercises to practice between their monthly biofeedback sessions. Twenty-nine of these patients were contacted by telephone an average of 23 months after last attending and asked to rate the present severity of their condition, changes since last attending biofeedback, and which aspects of the program they found most helpful. RESULTS: Of patients who completed the program, 70% achieved at least a 15% improvement in perceived symptom severity. Those who completed the program and achieved benefit were more likely to name the exercises as the most helpful program component. At the time of follow-up, however, there was no difference in perceived symptom severity between program completers and noncompleters. Program completers, and those followed up more than two years after last attending biofeedback, were more likely to report a worsening in symptom severity subsequent to their final treatment session. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the favourable short-term outcomes achieved by some patients completing biofeedback treatment for obstructive defaecation. The findings suggest that biofeedback equipment may be economically used in an educative and corrective role, and that other factors such as education, exercises and counselling alone play an important role. Finally, the benefits of biofeedback may not be maintained through long-term follow-up, raising questions as to the natural history of the disorder and the long-term effectiveness of biofeedback treatment.

Outcome measures for erectile dysfunction 2: evaluation

This article, the second of two parts, discusses and evaluates the range of outcome measures for erectile dysfunction (ED) identified from the literature review in part one (Vol 11(1): 54-64). The literature review identified 14 subjective and 12 objective measures. These outcome measures are needed for the components: rigidity, vascular flow, nerve conductivity, intracavernosus muscle power, partner satisfaction and quality of life. Instruments selected should provide good validity, reliability and responsiveness. Quick, simple, inexpensive and efficient outcome measures can be used by nurses.

Dyssynergic defecation

Dyssynergic defecation is a common clinical problem that affects half of patients with chronic constipation. In many patients, there is a significant overlap with slow transit constipation. The chief underlying pathophysiologic mechanism is a failure of rectoanal coordination. By using a combination of history, prospective stool diaries, detailed clinical evaluation, and anorectal physiologic tests, it is possible to diagnose this problem. Controlled trials are under way to evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback therapy. Meanwhile, it is possible to treat most patients by using neuromuscular conditioning and biofeedback therapy. Further refinements in diagnostic criteria and in rehabilitation therapy programs should facilitate better diagnosis and treatment of patients with dyssynergic defecation.

Reproducibility of colonic transit study in patients with chronic constipation

PURPOSE

Major therapeutic decisions are rendered based on a single colonic transit study. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of colonic transit time in patients with chronic constipation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients with chronic idiopathic constipation were randomly selected to undergo two separate colonic transit tests. All clinical conditions, methodology, and patients' instructions were identical on both occasions. The gamma rate (linear correlation analysis) was undertaken between the first and second colonic transit times. Groups were divided according to the diagnoses of colonic inertia (slow-transit constipation), paradoxical puborectalis contraction, and chronic idiopathic constipation (normal-transit constipation).

RESULTS

In 35 of 51 patients (69 percent), the results were identical between the two studies; however, in 16 patients (31 percent), the results were disparate (gamma correlation coefficient = 0.53; P < 0.01). The specific correlation coefficients for patients with colonic inertia, paradoxical puborectalis contraction, and chronic idiopathic constipation were 0.12, 0.21, and 0.60 (P < 0.01), respectively. Moreover, the success rate of colectomy for colonic inertia was significantly higher in patients who underwent a repeat transit study confirming inertia than in patients who underwent colectomy based on a single study.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, colonic transit time is reproducible in patients with chronic constipation. The correlation coefficient is best for patients with idiopathic constipation and worst for patients with colonic inertia. This new finding suggests that suboptimal surgical outcome may be attributable to inaccurate diagnosis. Because of this poor correlation coefficient, in patients with colonic inertia, consideration should be given to repeating the colonic transit study before colectomy to help secure the diagnosis and improve outcome.

Pelvic floor study in patients with obstructive defecation: influence of biofeedback

The aim of this study was to evaluate the pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with obstructive defecation or dyssynergia and to assess the role of biofeedback treatment. Three groups were studied. Group A had 24 patients with obstructive defecation; B, 25 patients with constipation; and C, 22 healthy volunteers. Rectosigmoid segmental transit time of group A was 28.5 hours (SD +/- 13.4); B, 17.2 hours (SD +/- 11.5); and C, 8.5 hours (SD +/- 6.3) (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in resting and squeezing anal pressure among the three groups. Anorectal angle at rest revealed no difference among the three groups. At strain, a statistically significant difference between groups A and C (p < 0.05) and a marginal difference between groups A and B was noted. Rectocele of the anterior rectal wall was present at strain in 17/24 patients of group A and 7/22 patients of group C (p < 0.05). Electromyography during strain revealed abnormal contractions of puborectalis muscle and external anal sphincter, in 13 and 14 patients of group A, respectively, which differed from that observed in groups B and C (p < 0.001). Biofeedback treatment was applied with good results in 7 of 11 patients of group A. At six months, constipation relapsed in only one of treated patients. Patients suffering from obstructive defecation seem to have slower rectosigmoid transit time than the others. Defecography shows smaller anorectal angle at strain and rectocele of the anterior rectal wall more often. Abnormal pelvic floor contraction at strain is often noted in anal electromyography. Some of these patients seem to respond favorably to biofeedback treatment.

Clinical value of symptom assessment in patients with constipation

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate symptoms and clinical findings in a prospective series of patients with chronic constipation.

METHODS

A total of 155 consecutive patients with intractable constipation underwent detailed symptom registration, anorectal manometry, electromyography, colonic transit time measurement, and defecography.

RESULTS

All investigations were completed by 134 patients (112 females) with a median age of 52 (range, 17-79) years. Whole-gut transit time was delayed in 55 patients (41 percent), pelvic floor dysfunction was diagnosed in 59 patients (44 percent), but in 35 percent of patients both transit time and pelvic floor function were found to be normal. Three symptoms were shown to have an independent value for the diagnosis of slow-transit constipation. Patients with slow transit more often reported two or fewer stools per week (84 vs. 46 percent), laxative dependence (87 vs. 44 percent), and a history of constipation since childhood (58 vs. 22 percent) than did those with normal transit. Pelvic floor dysfunction was associated with a higher prevalence of backache (53 vs. 33 percent) and a lower prevalence of normal stool frequency (19 vs. 36 percent), heartburn (12 vs. 27 percent), and a history of anorectal surgery (7 vs. 21 percent) compared with those with normal pelvic floor function. All four symptoms retained an independent value in the logistic regression analysis for pelvic floor dysfunction. Two symptoms characterized the group with normal transit and normal pelvic floor function: normal stool frequency and alternating diarrhea and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms are good predictors of transit time but poorer predictors of pelvic floor function in patients with constipation.

Electromyography of the external anal sphincter: comparison between needle and surface electrodes

PURPOSE

Electromyography of the external anal sphincter is frequently used when investigating patients with defecation disorders. Investigations are often performed using an invasive technique by perineal insertion of a needle or wire electrode. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether surface electromyography, with electrodes applied to the perineal skin, is a reliable method in the diagnosis of paradoxical anal sphincter reaction.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients with defecation disorders participated in the present study. They were investigated with electromyography of the external anal sphincter using surface and needle electrodes.

RESULTS

In 65 of 71 (92 percent) patients the electromyography recording showed the same result during straining using surface electrodes when compared with needle electrodes. Twenty-two of these 65 patients had paradoxical anal sphincter reaction, and 43 patients had decreased electromyography activity. In 6 of 71 (8 percent) patients the electromyography recording showed a different pattern during straining using surface electrodes when compared with needle electrodes.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates a good correlation between surface electrodes applied to the perineal skin and concentric needle electrodes in the diagnosis of paradoxical anal sphincter reaction. Noninvasive electromyography recordings of the external anal sphincter are often preferred in the diagnosis of paradoxical anal sphincter reaction.

Constipation assessed on the basis of colorectal physiology

BACKGROUND

Constipation is a collective term for symptoms of different aetiologies and pathophysiologies. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of colorectal pathophysiology findings in a prospective series of patients with chronic constipation.

METHODS

A total of 155 consecutive patients with chronic constipation underwent anorectal manometry, electromyography (EMG), the balloon expulsion test, colonic transit-time study, and defecography.

RESULTS

All investigations were completed by 134 patients (112 females) with a median age 52 (range, 17-79) years. Patients were categorized on the basis of transit time and pelvic-floor function as belonging to 1 of 4 groups: slow-transit constipation (STC) (delayed transit time but normal pelvic-floor function, n = 28), pelvic-floor dysfunction (PFD) (pelvic-floor dysfunction and normal transit time, n = 32), combined slow transit and pelvic-floor dysfunction (STC + PFD) (n = 27), and normal-transit constipation (NTC) (normal transit time and normal pelvic-floor function, n = 47). There was no difference between diagnostic groups in anal sphincter pressures. However, rectal sensitivity to balloon distension was lower (P < 0.05) in patients with delayed transit. Paradoxical puborectalis contraction (PPC) was found on EMG in 42 patients (31%). The prevalence of PPC was higher (P < 0.001) in patients with pelvic-floor dysfunction. Inability to evacuate the rectal balloon was reported by 37% of patients with pelvic-floor dysfunction and 12% of patients with normal pelvic-floor function (P < 0.001). Rectocele was the only anatomic abnormality at defecography which was associated with poor rectal emptying.

CONCLUSIONS

About two-thirds of our patients with constipation had objective evidence of delayed transit or pelvic-floor dysfunction. No single test could reliably identify any of the pathophysiologic subgroups of constipation.