Clinical value of symptom assessment in patients with constipation.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate symptoms and clinical findings in a prospective series of patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: A total of 155 consecutive patients with intractable constipation underwent detailed symptom registration, anorectal manometry, electromyography, colonic transit time measurement, and defecography. RESULTS: All investigations were completed by 134 patients (112 females) with a median age of 52 (range, 17-79) years. Whole-gut transit time was delayed in 55 patients (41 percent), pelvic floor dysfunction was diagnosed in 59 patients (44 percent), but in 35 percent of patients both transit time and pelvic floor function were found to be normal. Three symptoms were shown to have an independent value for the diagnosis of slow-transit constipation. Patients with slow transit more often reported two or fewer stools per week (84 vs. 46 percent), laxative dependence (87 vs. 44 percent), and a history of constipation since childhood (58 vs. 22 percent) than did those with normal transit. Pelvic floor dysfunction was associated with a higher prevalence of backache (53 vs. 33 percent) and a lower prevalence of normal stool frequency (19 vs. 36 percent), heartburn (12 vs. 27 percent), and a history of anorectal surgery (7 vs. 21 percent) compared with those with normal pelvic floor function. All four symptoms retained an independent value in the logistic regression analysis for pelvic floor dysfunction. Two symptoms characterized the group with normal transit and normal pelvic floor function: normal stool frequency and alternating diarrhea and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms are good predictors of transit time but poorer predictors of pelvic floor function in patients with constipation.

Biofeedback training in patients with fecal incontinence.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to assess the functional results of biofeedback training in patients with fecal incontinence in relation to clinical presentation and anorectal manometry results. METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients with fecal incontinence were treated with biofeedback training using anorectal manometry pressure for visual feedback. Ten patients had passive incontinence only, six patients had urge incontinence, and ten patients had combined passive and urge incontinence. RESULTS: Patients with urge incontinence had a lower maximum voluntary contraction pressure (92+/-12 mmHg) and a lower maximum tolerable volume (78+/-13 ml) than patients with passive incontinence (140+/-43 mmHg and 166+/-73 ml). Twenty-two patients completed the treatment, five patients (23 percent) showed excellent improvement, nine patients (41 percent) had good results, and eight (36 percent) patients showed no improvement. At follow-up on average of 21 months after therapy, 41 percent of our patients reported continued improvement. The maximum tolerable volume was higher in those with excellent (140.4+/-6.8 ml) or good (156.3+/-6.64 ml) results of therapy than it was in those with poor results (88.5+/-2.5 ml). Greater asymmetry of the anal sphincter also correlated to poor results. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback therapy improved continence immediately after training and at follow-up after 21 months, but the initial results were better. The urge fecal incontinence seems to be related to function of the external anal sphincter and to the maximum tolerable volume. Low maximum tolerable volume and anal sphincter asymmetry were associated with a poor outcome of therapy.

Antroduodenal manometry findings in patients with slow-transit constipation.

BACKGROUND: The results of subtotal colectomy for slow-transit constipation are unpredictable. Abdominal pain, distension, and bloating often persist after operation. To ascertain whether patients with slow-transit constipation may have a generalized intestinal motor disorder, we studied the antroduodenal motor activity in 20 consecutive patients with slow-transit constipation. METHODS: All patients underwent symptom registration, whole-gut transit time, anorectal manometry, electromyography of the anal sphincter, the balloon expulsion test, and defecography to characterize their constipation. The motor activity of the the gastric antrum and the proximal small bowel was monitored for 5 h, using a pneumohydraulic water-perfused manometry system with six channels. RESULTS: Twelve patients (60%) had abnormal patterns of motor activity: abnormal propagation or configuration of phase III in 9 of 12 patients, bursts of non-propagated phasic activity in 8 of 12 patients, and sustained periods of intense phasic activity in 3 of 12 patients. One patient had generalized hypomotility with low-amplitude contractions. In addition, an abundance of so-called discrete clustered contractions was found in 6 of 20 patients. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of patients with slow-transit constipation have manometric findings that indicate a generalized motor disorder of the gut. The clinical significance of this finding is still unclear.

Constipation assessed on the basis of colorectal physiology.

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a collective term for symptoms of different aetiologies and pathophysiologies. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of colorectal pathophysiology findings in a prospective series of patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: A total of 155 consecutive patients with chronic constipation underwent anorectal manometry, electromyography (EMG), the balloon expulsion test, colonic transit-time study, and defecography. RESULTS: All investigations were completed by 134 patients (112 females) with a median age 52 (range, 17-79) years. Patients were categorized on the basis of transit time and pelvic-floor function as belonging to 1 of 4 groups: slow-transit constipation (STC) (delayed transit time but normal pelvic-floor function, n = 28), pelvic-floor dysfunction (PFD) (pelvic-floor dysfunction and normal transit time, n = 32), combined slow transit and pelvic-floor dysfunction (STC + PFD) (n = 27), and normal-transit constipation (NTC) (normal transit time and normal pelvic-floor function, n = 47). There was no difference between diagnostic groups in anal sphincter pressures. However, rectal sensitivity to balloon distension was lower (P < 0.05) in patients with delayed transit. Paradoxical puborectalis contraction (PPC) was found on EMG in 42 patients (31%). The prevalence of PPC was higher (P < 0.001) in patients with pelvic-floor dysfunction. Inability to evacuate the rectal balloon was reported by 37% of patients with pelvic-floor dysfunction and 12% of patients with normal pelvic-floor function (P < 0.001). Rectocele was the only anatomic abnormality at defecography which was associated with poor rectal emptying. CONCLUSIONS: About two-thirds of our patients with constipation had objective evidence of delayed transit or pelvic-floor dysfunction. No single test could reliably identify any of the pathophysiologic subgroups of constipation.

Quality of life in patients with different types of functional constipation.

BACKGROUND: Little information is available about the health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with different types of chronic constipation. METHODS: We used two self-administered questionnaires, the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) to assess QoL and gastrointestinal symptoms in 102 consecutive patients with chronic constipation. The type of constipation was determined from transit time, electrophysiologic investigation of sphincter function, anorectal manometry, and defecography. RESULTS: Overall, our patients with constipation reported low scores for general well-being (mean score, 85.5, compared with 102.9 in a healthy population). Patients with normal-transit constipation (n = 49) reported considerably lower scores in the PGWB than those with slow-transit constipation (n = 35). The symptoms increased frequency of defecation, loose stools, and urgent need for defecation were commoner in normal-transit constipation, which indicates that this group may have a relation to the irritable bowel syndrome. The overall PGWB index was strongly correlated with the total GSRS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The general well-being of patients with chronic constipation is lower than that of a comparable normal population. Symptom severity correlates negatively with perceived quality of life.

Biofeedback retraining in patients with functional constipation and paradoxical puborectalis contraction: comparison of anal manometry and sphincter electromyography for feedback.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to assess the effect of biofeedback therapy in patients with constipation and paradoxical puborectalis contraction and to compare two different feedback modes. METHODS: Twenty-six patients were randomly allocated to either of two feedback modes: anal pressure using a manometry probe or anal sphincter electromyography (EMG) using surface electrodes. RESULTS: Six patients were unable to complete their training; ten patients were retrained using anal manometry and ten patients using EMG. The paradoxical puborectalis contraction disappeared after retraining with manometry feedback in eight of ten patients and with EMG feedback in ten of ten patients. A significant improvement in both bowel function and abdominal symptoms was found after training and a continued improvement at follow-up six months later. Six patients in the manometry group and nine in the EMG group experienced an overall improvement in symptoms. The two feedback methods did not differ in terms of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that biofeedback, using either manometry or EMG, is effective in improving symptoms and anorectal function caused by paradoxical puborectalis contraction.