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.

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.