RESUMO
Objective To compare the treatment efficacy and improvement of relevant indexes between electroacupuncture and biofeedback therapy in treating spastic pelvic floor syndrome (SPFS).Method Fifty SPFS patients were randomized into an electroacupuncture group and a biofeedback group by their visiting sequence, 25 cases each. In the electroacupuncture group, Baliao [Shangliao (BL31), Ciliao (BL32), Zhongliao (BL33), and Xialiao (BL34)], Zhigou (TE6), Dachangshu (BL25), Shangjuxu (ST37), Xiajuxu (ST39) and Tianshu (ST25) were selected and connected to HANS electroacupuncture apparatus, at 2 Hz and withinthe tolerable intensity, 30 min for each session. The treatment was given once every day, 6 sessions as a treatment course, with 1-day interval between two courses, for 4 courses in total. The biofeedback group was intervened by biofeedback therapy under doctor's guidance to correct the wrong defecation behavior. The treatment was given once every other day, 6 sessions as a treatment course, for 4 weeks in total. At the end of intervention, the therapeutic efficacy was evaluated, the anorectal angulation was measured by defecography (DFG), and the resting and contracting anorectal pressures were determined by anorectal manometry. Result There was no significant difference in comparing the therapeutic efficacy between the electroacupuncture group and biofeedback group(P>0.05). The anorectal angulation and pressure were improved in the two groups(P<0.05), and the improvement in the electroacupuncture group was more significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Electroacupuncture can effectively treat SPFS, equivalent to the popularly used biofeedback therapy, while electroacupuncture can produce a more significant effect in improving the anorectal angulation and pressure.