Lack of improvement in anorectal manometry parameters after implementation of a pelvic floor/anal sphincter biofeedback in persons with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Effect of biofeedback on improving anorectal manometric parameters in incomplete spinal cord injury is unknown. A short-term biofeedback program investigated any effect on anorectal manometric parameters without correlation to bowel symptoms. METHODS: This prospective uncontrolled interventional study comprised three study subject groups, Group 1: sensory/motor-complete American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A SCI (n = 13); Group 2 (biofeedback group): sensory incomplete AIS B SCI (n = 17) (n = 3), and motor-incomplete AIS C SCI (n = 8), and AIS D SCI (n = 6); and Group 3: able-bodied (AB) controls (n = 12). High-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) was applied to establish baseline characteristics in all subjects for anorectal pressure, volume, length of pressure zones, and duration of sphincter squeeze pressure. SCI participants with motor-incomplete SCI were enrolled in pelvic floor/anal sphincter bowel biofeedback training (2 × 6-week training periods comprised of two training sessions per week for 30-45 min per session). HR-ARM was also performed after each of the 6-week periods of biofeedback training. RESULTS: Compared to motor-complete or motor-incomplete SCI participants, AB subjects had higher mean intra-rectal pressure, maximal sphincteric pressure, residual anal pressure, recto-anal pressure gradient, and duration of squeeze (p < 0.05 for each of the endpoints). No significant difference was evident at baseline between the motor-complete and motor-incomplete SCI groups. In motor-incomplete SCI subjects, the pelvic floor/anal sphincter biofeedback protocol failed to improve HR-ARM parameters. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback training program did not improve anal manometric parameters in subjects with motor-incomplete or sensory-incomplete SCI. Biofeedback did not change physiology, and its effects on symptoms are unknown. INFERENCES: Utility of biofeedback is limited in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury in terms of improving HR-ARM parameters.

Delivery of neostigmine and glycopyrrolate by iontophoresis: a nonrandomized study in individuals with spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Phase I Clinical Trial. OBJECTIVES: In this proof-of-principle study, the effectiveness and safety of transdermal administration of neostigmine/glycopyrrolate to elicit a bowel movement was compared to intravenous administration in patients with spinal cord injury. SETTING: James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Bronx, NY). METHODS: Individuals were screened for responsiveness (Physical Response) to intravenous neostigmine (0.03 mg/kg)/glycopyrrolate (0.006 mg/kg). Intravenous neostigmine/glycopyrrolate responders (Therapeutic Response) were administered low-dose transdermal neostigmine/glycopyrrolate [(0.05 mg/kg)/(0.01 mg/kg)] by iontophoresis. Non-responders to low-dose transdermal neostigmine/glycopyrrolate were administered high-dose transdermal neostigmine/glycopyrrolate [(0.07 mg/kg)/(0.014 mg/kg)] by iontophoresis. Bowel movement, bowel evacuation time, and cholinergic side effects were recorded. Visits were separated by 2 to 14 days. RESULTS: Eighteen of 25 individuals (72.0%) had a bowel movement (20 ± 22 min) after intravenous neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. Of these 18 individuals, 5 individuals experienced a bowel movement with low-dose transdermal neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. Another five individuals had a bowel movement after high-dose transdermal neostigmine/glycopyrrolate administration. Fewer side effects were observed in individuals who received neostigmine/glycopyrrolate transdermally compared to those who were administered intravenous neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. CONCLUSIONS: Transdermal administration of neostigmine/glycopyrrolate by iontophoresis appears to be a practical, safe, and effective approach to induce bowel evacuation in individuals with spinal cord injury.