Cargando…

Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?

BACKGROUND: Instrumented anorectal biofeedback (BF) improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence and defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation. However, demand for BF greatly outweighs availability, so refinement of the BF protocol, in terms of the time and re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mazor, Yoav, Kellow, John E., Prott, Gillian M., Jones, Michael P., Malcolm, Allison
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6429655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30915166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756284819836072
_version_ 1783405637706711040
author Mazor, Yoav
Kellow, John E.
Prott, Gillian M.
Jones, Michael P.
Malcolm, Allison
author_facet Mazor, Yoav
Kellow, John E.
Prott, Gillian M.
Jones, Michael P.
Malcolm, Allison
author_sort Mazor, Yoav
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Instrumented anorectal biofeedback (BF) improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence and defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation. However, demand for BF greatly outweighs availability, so refinement of the BF protocol, in terms of the time and resources required, is of importance. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of an abbreviated BF protocol in patients with defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation and/or faecal incontinence compared to standard BF. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients (n = 31; age 54 ± 15; 29 females; 61% functional constipation) undergoing an intentionally abbreviated BF protocol, and compared in a 1:2 ratio with 62 age, gender and functional anorectal disorder-matched control patients undergoing a standard BF. Outcomes included change in symptoms, physiology, patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: On intention to treat, patients in both protocols showed significant improvement in symptom scores and the magnitude did not differ between groups. Impact on quality of life, satisfaction and control over bowel movements improved in both protocols, but satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the standard BF protocol (p = 0.009). Physiological parameters were unchanged after BF apart from improvement in rectal sensation in the standard BF group compared to abbreviated BF (p ⩽ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated anorectal BF offered to patients travelling from far away was not different to a standard BF in providing substantial, at least short term, improvements in symptoms of constipation and faecal incontinence, quality of life and feeling of control over bowel movements. Refinement of the standard BF protocol according to individual patient phenotypes and desired outcomes warrants further study in order to maximize efficacy and improve access for patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6429655
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64296552019-03-26 Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment? Mazor, Yoav Kellow, John E. Prott, Gillian M. Jones, Michael P. Malcolm, Allison Therap Adv Gastroenterol Original Research BACKGROUND: Instrumented anorectal biofeedback (BF) improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence and defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation. However, demand for BF greatly outweighs availability, so refinement of the BF protocol, in terms of the time and resources required, is of importance. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of an abbreviated BF protocol in patients with defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation and/or faecal incontinence compared to standard BF. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients (n = 31; age 54 ± 15; 29 females; 61% functional constipation) undergoing an intentionally abbreviated BF protocol, and compared in a 1:2 ratio with 62 age, gender and functional anorectal disorder-matched control patients undergoing a standard BF. Outcomes included change in symptoms, physiology, patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: On intention to treat, patients in both protocols showed significant improvement in symptom scores and the magnitude did not differ between groups. Impact on quality of life, satisfaction and control over bowel movements improved in both protocols, but satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the standard BF protocol (p = 0.009). Physiological parameters were unchanged after BF apart from improvement in rectal sensation in the standard BF group compared to abbreviated BF (p ⩽ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated anorectal BF offered to patients travelling from far away was not different to a standard BF in providing substantial, at least short term, improvements in symptoms of constipation and faecal incontinence, quality of life and feeling of control over bowel movements. Refinement of the standard BF protocol according to individual patient phenotypes and desired outcomes warrants further study in order to maximize efficacy and improve access for patients. SAGE Publications 2019-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6429655/ /pubmed/30915166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756284819836072 Text en © The Author(s), 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Mazor, Yoav
Kellow, John E.
Prott, Gillian M.
Jones, Michael P.
Malcolm, Allison
Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
title Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
title_full Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
title_fullStr Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
title_full_unstemmed Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
title_short Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
title_sort anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6429655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30915166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1756284819836072
work_keys_str_mv AT mazoryoav anorectalbiofeedbackaneffectivetherapybutcanweshortenthecoursetoimproveaccesstotreatment
AT kellowjohne anorectalbiofeedbackaneffectivetherapybutcanweshortenthecoursetoimproveaccesstotreatment
AT prottgillianm anorectalbiofeedbackaneffectivetherapybutcanweshortenthecoursetoimproveaccesstotreatment
AT jonesmichaelp anorectalbiofeedbackaneffectivetherapybutcanweshortenthecoursetoimproveaccesstotreatment
AT malcolmallison anorectalbiofeedbackaneffectivetherapybutcanweshortenthecoursetoimproveaccesstotreatment