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.

Prevalence of the Endoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Determined by Palisading Vessel and Inter-observer Variation / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Barrett's esophagus is confirmed by performing a biopsy when the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and Z-line do not coincide. In Japan, the GEJ is at the distal end of the palisading vessel while Western countries define it as the proximal tip of the gastric fold. However, there is little data on the prevalence of an endoscopic Barrett's esophagus and the inter-observer variation. METHODS: Four experienced endoscopists reviewed the endoscopic still images of 111 consecutive patients. The level of inter-observer agreement was expressed as a kappa value. RESULTS: The average percentage of patients with an endoscopically confirmed esophagus was 34.2%. The level of inter-observer agreement was substantial (kappa=0.698). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of an endoscopic confirmed Barrett's esophagus was high, and the inter-observer variation was substantial when the GEJ was defined as the distal end of the palisading vessel. Considering the low incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma and the risk of hemorrhage from a biopsy, a more specific marker is needed in this high-risk group.