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.

Neostigmine Administered With MoviPrep Improves Bowel Preparation for Elective Colonoscopy in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Poor preparation for elective colonoscopy is exceedingly common in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). This unsatisfactory outcome is likely due to long-standing difficulty with evacuation and decreased colonic motility, which may result in inadequate responses to conventional bowel preparation regimens. We determined whether the addition of neostigmine to MoviPrep before elective colonoscopy produced a higher percentage of acceptable bowel preparations in patients with SCI. METHODS: Twenty-seven SCI subjects were prospectively randomized to 1 of 2 arms: low-volume polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage with ascorbic acid (MoviPrep) or MoviPrep plus neostigmine methylsulfate and glycopyrrolate (MoviPrep+NG); 28 able-bodied subjects received MoviPrep alone. The quality of the cleansing preparation for colonoscopy was determined by gastroenterologists "calibrated" to use the Ottawa Scoring System, with an acceptable Ottawa Score (OS) considered to be ≤3. RESULTS: The administration of MoviPrep alone resulted in suboptimal bowel cleansing in the SCI group compared with the able-bodied group (50% vs. 89% of subjects had an acceptable OS; χ=7.94, P=0.05). However, when NG was added to MoviPrep in the SCI group, it markedly improved the quality of the bowel preparation, with 85% of patients then having an acceptable OS. The use of NG resulted in minimal bloating and distention before bowel evacuation (P=0.0005), and eye and muscle twitching; these were resolved within 1 hour after NG administration. No significant differences were noted among the preparation groups for adenoma detection rate (P=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MoviPrep+NG was safe, well tolerated, and an effective approach to prepare the bowel for elective colonoscopy in patients with SCI. The side effects of this preparation were significant compared with the other treatment groups but were considered mild and anticipated.

Comparison between pulsed irrigation enhanced evacuation and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution for bowel preparation prior to elective colonoscopy in veterans with spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Poor preparation for elective colonoscopy is common in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). This unsatisfactory outcome is likely due to long-standing difficulty with evacuation and decreased colonic motility. Our objective was to determine the most effective preparation for elective colonoscopy applying a novel and traditional approach to bowel cleansing. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects with SCI were consented and scheduled to receive one of the two possible arms: pulsed irrigation enhanced evacuation (PIEE) or polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (PEG; CoLyte(®)). The quality of the preparation was scored during the colonoscopy by applying the Ottawa scoring system. RESULTS: Patients with SCI who received PIEE tended to have lower Ottawa scores and a higher percentage of acceptable preparations than did those who received PEG; however, the results were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study in subjects with SCI, neither PIEE nor PEG produced acceptable bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy. Future studies should confirm our findings and consider studying alternative, more efficacious approaches to bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopic procedures in patients with SCI, which should provide better outcomes. Registration number for clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00745095.