Response to Biofeedback Therapy for Patients with Rectal Hyposensitivity

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Rectal hyposensitivity (RH) has been treated with conventional biofeedback therapy (BFT), whereas the effectiveness and long term results of this therapy are not known. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of BFT for patients with RH by conducting a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. METHODS: From June 2004 to March 2007, we enrolled those RH patients who underwent BFT. BFT was performed two or three times every week. Six months after BFT, the clinical response was evaluated by subjective and objective parameters. RESULTS: A total of 82 RH patients underwent BFT. Fifty three patients finished BFT and the other 29 patients dropped out during BFT. Thirty six patients (67.9%) showed responsiveness (R) to BFT and 17 (31.5%) showed non-responsiveness (NR). The characteristics between the two groups showed no difference, except for the "desire to defecate" volume (116.1+/-25.2 in the R group vs. 140.0+/-43.9 in the NR group, p value <0.05) and the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR) (15.6+/-0.5 in the R group R vs. 27.6+/-18.2 in the NR group, p value <0.05). The R group showed a shorter colon transit time compared to NR group. At six months after BFT, a total of 20 patients were interviewed; 15 patients answered that they still had responsiveness (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The patients with RH showed a similar BFT response to that of the constipated patients. However, the patients with a more hyposensitive rectum and a longer colonic transit showed NR to BFT, suggesting RH is an important factor in BFT responsiveness.

Clinical characteristics of constipation associated with diabetes mellitus / 대한내과학회지

BACKGROUND: Constipation occurs frequently in diabetes mellitus (DM). However, there are few reports that investigated the characteristics of constipation associated with DM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical features of constipation associated with DM. METHODS: Among constipated patients who visited Asan Medical Center from January 2000 to December 2004, 45 patients with DM (DM group) and 104 patients without DM (non-DM group) were included in this study. We reviewed the clinical presentation, results of anorectal manometry, colon transit time study, and defecogram. We also analyzed the response to biofeedback therapy. RESULTS: The severity of constipation symptoms before treatment was not different between DM and non-DM group. Patients with colon transit time over 56 hours were more frequent in DM group than in non-DM group (21/45, 46.7% vs. 31/104, 29.8% ; p=0.047). Among DM group, colon transit time and the duration of DM showed positive correlation (r=0.431, p=0.003). The resting anal sphincter pressure was significantly lower in DM group than in non-DM group (43.5+/-21.5 mmHg vs. 51.7+/-22.6 mmHg ; p=0.048). The results of defecography were similar between DM and non-DM group. Successful responses to biofeedback therapy were not different between DM and non-DM group (19/34, 55.9% vs. 43/79, 54.4% ; p=0.887). CONCLUSIONS: Slow transit constipation was more frequent in DM group than in non-DM group. The successful responses to biofeedback therapy appear to be similar between DM and non-DM group.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Chronic Constipation after Radical Hysterectomy or Delivery / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study was aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who developed constipation after radical hysterectomy or delivery and to investigate the results of biofeedback therapy for these patients. METHODS: Thirty-five chronic constipation patients with radical hysterectomy (radical hysterectomy group), 27 chronic constipation patients with delivery (delivery group) and 27 constipation patients with no history of hysterectomy or delivery (control group) were included. Clinical characteristics of these patients, including the results of biofeedback therapy, were analyzed. RESULTS: The delivery group showed higher rates of pelvic floor dyssynergia than the control group (14/27, 52% vs. 6/27, 22%; p<0.05). The prevalence of slow transit constipation was lower in the radical hysterectomy group and delivery group than in the control group (7/35, 20% and 5/27, 19% vs. 12/27, 44%; p<0.05). The prevalence of anatomical abnormalities was not different between the groups. The radical hysterectomy group showed higher rate of obstructive sensation and the delivery group showed higher rate of hard stool and digital maneuvers. The biofeedback therapy was effective in 10 out of 12 patients (91%) among the radical hysterectomy and delivery group. CONCLUSIONS: Radical hysterectomy and delivery seem to induce functional constipation, which may be caused by anorectal dysfunction such as pelvic floor dyssynergia. The biofeedback treatment was effective in functional constipation after radical hysterectomy or delivery.

Clinical Factors Associated with Response to Biofeedback Therapy for Patients with Chronic Constipation / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biofeedback therapy has been widely used for the treatment of constipated patients. However, there are only a few reports about the clinical factors that can predict the effectiveness of biofeedback therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors before the initiation of biofeedback treatment in constipated patients. METHODS: Biofeedback treatment was performed in 114 patients with constipation. After classifying the patients into two groups, responder and non-responder by subjective and objective parameters, univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to evaluate the factors associated with effectiveness of biofeedback therapy. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (74.6%) responded to biofeedback therapy. Pre-treatment balloon expulsion test, paradoxical contraction on manometry, defecation index and anal residual pressure during straining were the factors that influenced the results of biofeedback treatment. On multivariate analysis, defecation index (odds ratio=67.5, p<0.05) and paradoxical contraction on manometry (odds ratio=0.053, p<0.05) were the factors that showed significant difference between the responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that several pre-treatment prognostic factors are associated with response to biofeedback for the constipated patients. Using prognostic factors, we may be able to evaluate the patterns of pelvic floor dysfunction and responsiveness of biofeedback therapy for the patients with constipation.