Obstructed defecation syndrome associated with paradoxical puborectalis contraction: osteopathic treatment versus anal biofeedback. Results of a pilot study

A novel wireless, smartphone-based biofeedback training device for functional defecatory disorders: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Functional defecatory disorders (FDDs) are highly prevalent around the world. Biofeedback is an effective treatment for FDDs. Traditionally, this treatment is performed by clinicians in a limited number of hospitals because of procedure-related expenses and a need for a dedicated procedure room. To make the biofeedback therapy more widely available, we have designed a novel wireless, smartphone-based biofeedback device, with the ultimate goal of performing the therapy at home. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether the developed device can be employed to treat patients with FDDs in a clinical setting, prior to employing it in a home setting.

METHODS

From March 2018 to July 2018, we performed the biofeedback therapy using the newly developed wireless, smartphone-based device in patients with FDDs 30 min daily during weekdays for 2 weeks. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for bowel satisfaction, Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM), Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL), and a balloon expulsion test were assessed at baseline and after the therapy.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were recruited and ten of them (mean age 70.3 ± 8.9 years, female:male ratio: 3:7) completed the study. Spontaneous bowel movements, complete spontaneous bowel movements, and VAS were all significantly increased after the therapy compared with baseline, respectively (6.5 ± 4.3 vs. 1.5 ± 2.2, p = 0.006; 3.1 ± 2.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, p = 0.002; 49.5 ± 31.0 vs. 12.0 ± 9.2, p = 0.003). There was a significant decrease in the PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL after the biofeedback therapy (0.7 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3, p = 0.001; 0.7 ± 0. 6 vs. 1.5 ± 0.4, p = 0.001). The therapy reduced the balloon expulsion time significantly (83.9 ± 68.8 s vs. 160.0 ± 36.7 s, p = 0.002). No obvious adverse events related to the procedure itself occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofeedback training using the newly developed wireless, smartphone-based device is feasible in the clinic setting, and it seems to be a promising method for improving constipation and related symptoms in patients with FDDs. These findings could be used to develop a much-needed, home-based, suitably powered, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Digital Rectal Examination Is a Valuable Bedside Tool for Detecting Dyssynergic Defecation: A Diagnostic Study and a Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate dyssynergic defecation (DD) diagnosis depends on anorectal physiological tests that are not widely available.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic yield of digital rectal examination (DRE) compared with anorectal physiological tests in diagnosing DD in patients with constipation.

METHODS

A total of 218 chronic constipation patients who fulfilled the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for functional constipation (FC) and underwent a standardized DRE and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) test were enrolled in this study. The diagnostic accuracy of DRE compared with HRAM was evaluated, and the agreement between DRE and HRAM was calculated. Furthermore, a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database was conducted to further elucidate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of DRE in DD patients.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients (46.33%) had a DD pattern using HRAM, while 117 patients (53.67%) were diagnosed without DD. The sensitivity of DRE in diagnosing dyssynergia was 71.3%, and the specificity was 76.1%. There was a moderate agreement between DRE and HRAM for diagnosing DD (κ-coefficient = 0.474, P < 0.001). Meanwhile, six studies (including our study) comprising 964 constipated patients were included in our meta-analysis. The outcomes demonstrated that the AUC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) with 77% summary sensitivity (95% CI 65-86) and 80% summary specificity (95% CI 71-86) to diagnose DD.

CONCLUSIONS

DRE could be a valuable tool for screening DD. Our study revealed acceptable sensitivity and specificity of DRE in detecting dyssynergia compared with the physiological tests. Meanwhile, our study highlights that DRE remains an important tool in clinical practice.