Biofeedback therapy plus anal electrostimulation for fecal incontinence: prognostic factors and effects on anorectal physiology

Targeted Electromyographic Biofeedback With Endoanal Electrostimulation for Anal Incontinence

Purpose. Anal incontinence (AI) is a disabling condition with a variable response to conservative physical therapies. We assess the utility of combining electromyographic biofeedback with endoanal electrostimulation targeted to the weakest areas of the pelvic floor using the MAPLe^® probe (Multiple Array Probe Leiden Novuqare). Methods. Patients with AI unresponsive to conservative measures were assessed before and after treatment with anorectal manometry (ARM), electromyography (EMG), Wexner Continence Scoring, Visual Analog Scoring (VAS), FIQL and SF-12 quality of life determination. Results. Of 29 patients in the final analysis, there was an improvement in the mean Wexner continence score from 13.59 to 8.03 and a concomitant improvement in the reported VAS from 3.45 to 6.72. Both Wexner continence and VAS scores were maintained during follow-up. Maximum voluntary manometric contraction significantly improved from 91.76 mmHg to 110.33 mmHg with no changes in resting pressure. The EMG values ​​(μV) that significantly improved included the average and peak resistance, the average general voluntary contraction, and the average and peak voluntary contraction for both the external anal sphincter and the puborectalis. In the FIQL, behavior, depression and shame domains improved after treatment and during follow-up with lifestyle improvements detected at 6 and 12 months. Physical and mental components of the SF-12 improved at 6 and 12 months. Conclusions. Targeted electromyographic biofeedback and endoanal electrostimulation using MAPLe® probe in AI patients sustainably improves objective ARM and EMG parameters along with subjective reporting of continence severity, VAS, and quality of life.

Administration of an Anal Bulking Agent With Polyacrylate-Polyalcohol Copolymer Particles Versus Endoanal Electrical Stimulation With Biofeedback for the Management of Mild and Moderate Anal Incontinence: A Randomized Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

There are few treatment options for mild-to-moderate anal incontinence with isolated internal anal sphincter defects or anal incontinence without muscle damage. Less-invasive techniques are generally favored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results between the use of an anal bulking agent with polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer particles and endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback in patients with mild or moderate anal incontinence.

DESIGN

This was a prospective parallel-group, single-institution, randomized clinical trial.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in an ambulatory setting at the Colorectal Physiology Service of the Hospital das Clinicas, Medical School, University of Sao Paulo.

PATIENTS

This study included patients who had anal incontinence for >6 months with isolated internal anal sphincter muscle damage or absence of anatomical defects in the anorectal sphincter complex.

INTERVENTIONS

Anal bulking agent and endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score, and the secondary outcome measures included quality of life, recommended procedures, and anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in mean age, sex, BMI, stool consistency, and Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (p = 0.20) at baseline. After 12 months, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score was found to be significantly improved in patients treated with the bulking agent compared to those treated with electrical stimulation (mean, 6.2 vs 9.2; p = 0.002), though the anorectal manometry parameters did not change significantly. The mean anal Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score declined by 4.2 points in the bulking agent group compared to a decline of 0.8 in the electrical stimulation group (mean difference in decline: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 1.2-5.5). Quality-of life evaluation showed similar results between groups comparing baseline parameters with 12-month follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

The short follow-up period of 1 year, atypical method of biofeedback, and unmatched baseline in some of the quality-of-life scales between the 2 groups limited this study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild or moderate anal incontinence, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score significantly improved in the bulking agent with polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer group compared with the endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback group. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B938.

ADMINISTRACIN DE UN GEL ANAL CON PARTCULAS DE COPOLMERO DE POLIACRILATOPOLIALCOHOL VERSUS ESTIMULACIN ELCTRICA ENDOANAL CON EJERCICIOS ANALES BIOFEEDBACK PARA EL MANEJO DE LA INCONTINENCIA ANAL LEVE Y MODERADA UN ESTUDI PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO

ANTECEDENTES:Hasta la fecha, existen pocas opciones de tratamiento para la incontinencia anal de leve a moderada con defectos aislados del esfínter anal interno o la incontinencia anal sin daño muscular. Por lo general, se prefieren técnicas menos invasivas.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar los resultados entre el uso de un gel intra-anal con partículas de copolímero de poliacrilato-polialcohol y la estimulación eléctrica endoanal con ejercicios anales en pacientes con incontinencia anal leve o moderada.DISEÑO:Este fue un ensayo clínico aleatorio prospectivo de grupos paralelos, de una institución, realizado en cuatro etapas: base, procedimientos, postratamiento temprano y tardío.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en el ambulatorio de Fisiología Colorrectal del Servicio de Coloproctología del Hospital das Clínicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de São Paulo.PACIENTES:Paciente con incontinencia anal con más de 6 meses, con daño muscular aislado del esfínter anal interno o ausencia de defectos anatómicos en el esfínter anorrectal.INTERVENCIONES:Las intervenciones incluyeron la inyección del gel intra-anal y estimulación eléctrica endoanal con ejercicios anales.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Indice de incontinencia fecal (Cleveland Clinic Florida), Indice de calidad de vida, los procedimientos recomendados y la manometría anorrectal.RESULTADOS:No hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a la edad media, el sexo, el índice de masa corporal, la consistencia de las heces y la puntuación de incontinencia fecal (p = 0,20) al inicio del estudio. Después de 12 meses, la puntuación de incontinencia fecal mejoró significativamente en los pacientes tratados con el el gel intra-anal (media = 6,2) en comparación con los tratados con estimulación eléctrica (media = 9,2; p = 0,002), aunque los parámetros de manometría anorrectal no mejoraron significativamente. La puntuación anal media de incontinencia fecal disminuyó 4,2 puntos en el grupo del Gel intra-anal en comparación con 0,8 en el grupo de estimulación eléctrica (diferencia media en la disminución: 3,4 puntos; IC del 95%: 1,2 a 5,5). La evaluación de la calidad de vida mostró resultados similares entre los grupos que compararon los parámetros iniciales con un seguimiento de 12 meses.LIMITACIONES:Breve período de seguimiento de un año, métodos diferentes de ejercicios anales y línea de base sin igual en algunas de las escalas de calidad de vida entre los dos grupos.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con incontinencia anal leve y moderada, la puntuación de incontinencia fecal mejoró significativamente en el grupo de gel intra-anal con copolímero de poliacrilato-polialcohol en comparación con la estimulación eléctrica endoanal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B938. (Traducción- Dr Leonardo Alfonso Bustamante-Lopez).

[Anal incontinence]

Anal incontinence describes the uncontrolled transanal passage of gaseous, solid or liquid intestinal contents. It can be a considerable psychosocial burden and impairment of the quality of life for those affected. The cause can be primary damage to the continence organ or incontinence can be a secondary symptom of other diseases. The detailed patient history and clinical examination document the severity of incontinence, impairment of quality of life and pathomorphological changes. The treatment is primarily conservative. A combination of conservative therapeutic approaches can often achieve satisfactory symptom relief. If conservative treatment remains insufficient, surgical measures can be considered. Sphincteroplasty and sacral neuromodulation are the preferred surgical interventions.

Factors Associated With Response to Anorectal Biofeedback Therapy in Patients With Fecal Incontinence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Anorectal biofeedback (BF) is commonly used to treat patients with fecal incontinence (FI), but demand usually exceeds availability. It is therefore important to identify patients most likely to respond to BF treatment. We aimed to identify pre-treatment clinical or physiologic factors that might be used to predict completion and success of BF in women with FI.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 400 women with FI (mean age, 61 ± 14 y) undergoing instrumental BF in a tertiary care setting from 2003 through 2016. All patients completed questionnaires before BF, including Rome and the hospital anxiety and depression scale questionnaires. Histories of medication use, surgery, medical conditions, and bowel pattern were recorded, urge was assessed, and patients kept stool diaries. Before and after treatment (6 weekly sessions with a gastroenterologist-supervised nurse specialist, 4 involving instrumented anorectal biofeedback), patients were examined by a physician and fecal incontinence severity index and visual analogue scale scores were recorded. The main outcome measure was response to therapy, defined as improvement of 50% or more in weekly FI episodes at the end of BF compared with before BF.

RESULTS

The BF treatment was completed by 363 women (91%); of these, 62 had low baseline symptom frequency (no FI episodes in the 2 weeks before BF). Younger age was associated with failure to complete treatment. Of the 301 patients remaining, 202 patients (67%) had a response to therapy; among these women, urge FI was associated with response at end of BF, but not at follow up (6 months after therapy). Baseline severity of symptom scores and quality of life measures were associated with greater improvement in the same variable at the end of BF and after 6 months. Patients with low baseline symptom frequency improved in all secondary outcome measures, similar to patients with higher baseline symptom frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of 363 women with FI, approximately two-thirds had a response to BF treatment. Urge FI was the only baseline variable associated with response. Baseline severity of symptoms and quality of life measures were associated with greater improvement in the same variable, but not overall response. It is therefore a challenge to select treatment for patients with FI.

What Is Fecal Incontinence That Urologists Need to Know?

Fecal incontinence (FI) undoubtedly reduces quality of life and adversely affects the social life of the affected individual. FI has a higher prevalence with age and has an equivalent prevalence to urinary incontinence in patients with genitourinary disease, but is often not confirmed in these cases. A thorough investigation is needed to diagnose FI, with the common etiology of this condition in mind, and several questionnaires can be used to identify symptoms. The physical examination contains digital rectal examination carries out to identify the patient's condition. Ultrasound, colonoscopy, and rectum pressure test can be performed. Patients educated in diet-related issues, bowel movements, and defecation mechanism. Nonoperative options such as diet control and Kegel exercise should be performed at first. Surgical treatment of FI is considered when conservative management and oral medications produce no improvement. Surgical options include less invasive procedures like bulking agent injections, and more involved approaches from sacral nerve stimulation to invasive direct sphincter repair and artificial bowel sphincter insertion. Good outcomes in FI cases have also recently been reported for barrier devices.

Characteristics Associated With Clinically Important Treatment Responses in Women Undergoing Nonsurgical Therapy for Fecal Incontinence

OBJECTIVE

To identify baseline clinical and demographic characteristics associated with clinically important treatment responses in a randomized trial of nonsurgical therapies for fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

Women (N = 296) with FI were randomized to loperamide or placebo- and manometry-assisted biofeedback exercises or educational pamphlet in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Treatment response was defined in 3 ways from baseline to 24 weeks: minimal clinically important difference (MID) of -5 points in St. Mark's score, ≥50% reduction in FI episodes, and combined St. Mark's MID and ≥50% reduction FI episodes. Multivariable logistic regression models included baseline characteristics and treatment groups with and without controlling for drug and exercise adherence.

RESULTS

Treatment response defined by St. Mark's MID was associated with higher symptom severity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.28) and being overweight vs normal/underweight (aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.07-4.34); these predictors remained controlling for adherence. Fifty percent reduction in FI episodes was associated with the combined loperamide/biofeedback group compared with placebo/pamphlet (aOR 4.04, 95% CI 1.36-11.98), St. Mark's score in the placebo/pamphlet group (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.65), FI subtype of urge vs urge plus passive FI (aOR 2.39, 95% CI 1.09-5.25), and passive vs urge plus passive FI (aOR 3.26, 95% CI 1.48-7.17). Controlling for adherence, associations remained, except St. Mark's score.

DISCUSSION

Higher severity of FI symptoms, being overweight, drug adherence, FI subtype, and combined biofeedback and medication treatment were associated with clinically important treatment responses. This information may assist in counseling patients, regarding efficacy and expectations of nonsurgical treatments of FI.

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 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.

Predictors of Success for Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Pelvic Organ Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in women with prolapse has been demonstrated in several studies, there seem to be subgroups of responders and nonresponders.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify factors that predict treatment success in women receiving pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse.

DESIGN

The design was a secondary analysis of data from 2 randomized controlled trials comparing conservative prolapse treatments.

METHODS

After 12 months, 172 women subjectively assessed treatment success ("better") or failure ("the same" or "worse"). Potential predictors were identified by a literature search and by consultation with experts in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor muscle training. The relationship between potential predictors and treatment success was explored using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Treatment was successful in 94 women (55%) and unsuccessful in 78 women (45%). The presence of ≥1 indicators of obstetric trauma (eg, high birth weight, episiotomy, perineal laceration during vaginal delivery, forceps delivery, or vacuum extraction) (odds ratio = 4.4; 95% CI = 1.6-12.0) and younger age (odds ratio = 0.94 per year; 95% CI = 0.9-1.0) independently predicted treatment success. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the final model was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.57-0.74), and the model explained 11.7% of the variance.

LIMITATIONS

Although attempts were made to include all relevant predictors, the selection or operationalization of variables could have been incomplete or insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying women who have prolapse and are likely to benefit most from pelvic floor muscle training is of great importance to clinical practice. In this study, 2 factors that independently predicted favorable outcomes were identified with this management approach. However, further research is needed to identify other predictive factors and to validate a new model in another population.

The short-term effects of posterior tibial nerve stimulation on anorectal physiology in patients with faecal incontinence: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a novel treatment for patients with faecal incontinence (FI) and may be effective in selected patients; however, its mechanism of action is unknown. We sought to determine the effects of PTNS on anorectal physiological parameters.

METHODS

Fifty patients with FI underwent 30 min of PTNS treatment, weekly for 12 weeks. High-resolution anorectal manometry, bowel diaries and Vaizey questionnaires were performed before and after treatment. Successful treatment was determined as a greater than 50% reduction in FI episodes.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with FI were studied; 39 women, median age 62 years (range 30-82). Compared with pretreatment, there were reductions in episodes of urgency (16.0 versus 11.4, p = 0.006), overall FI (14.5 versus 9.1, p = 0.001), urge FI (5.4 versus 3.2, p = 0.016) and passive FI (9.1 versus 5.9, p = 0.008). Vaizey score was reduced (16.1 versus 14.5, p = 0.002). Rectal sensory volumes (ml) decreased (onset 40.3 versus 32.6, p = 0.014, call 75.7 versus 57.5, p < 0.001, urge 104.1 versus 87.4, p = 0.004). There was no significant change in anal canal pressures (mmHg) (maximum resting pressure 41.4 versus 44.2, p = 0.39, maximum squeeze pressure, 78.7 versus 88.2, p = 0.15, incremental squeeze pressure 37.2 versus 44.1, p = 0.22). Reduction in FI episodes did not correlate with changes in physiological parameters (p > 0.05). Treatment success of 44% was independent of changes in manometric parameters (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PTNS has a measureable physiological effect on rectal sensory volumes without an effect on anal canal pressures. It also reduces FI episodes; however, this effect is independent of changing physiology, suggesting that PTNS has a complex mechanism of action.

Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Options for Fecal Incontinence

Fecal incontinence (FI), defined as the involuntary loss of solid or liquid feces through the anus is a prevalent condition with significant effects on quality of life. FI can affect individuals of all ages and in many cases greatly impairs quality of life but, incontinent patients should not accept their debility as either inevitable or untreatable. The severity of incontinence can range from unintentional elimination of flatus to the complete evacuation of bowel contents. It is reported to affect up to 18% of the population, with a prevalence reaching as high as 50% in nursing home residents. However, FI is often underreported, thus obscuring its true prevalence in the general population. The options for treatment vary according to the degree and severity of the FI. Treatment can include dietary and lifestyle modification, certain medications, biofeedback therapy, bulking agent injections, sacral nerve stimulation as well as various types of surgery. In this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive review on the diagnosis and management of FI.

Novel insights into fecal incontinence in men

Fecal incontinence (FI) in men is common, yet data on sex differences in clinical features, physiology, and treatment are scarce. Our aim was to provide insights into FI in males compared with females. Prospectively collected data from 73 men and 596 women with FI in a tertiary referral center were analyzed. Anorectal physiology, clinical characteristics, and outcome of instrumented biofeedback (BF) were recorded. Thirty-one men with FI proceeded to BF and were matched with 62 age-matched women with FI who underwent BF. Men with FI had higher resting, squeeze, and cough anal sphincter pressures (P < 0.001) and were more able to hold a sustained squeeze compared with women (P = 0.04). Men with FI had higher rectal pressure and less inadequate rectal pressure on strain and higher sensory thresholds (P < 0.05). Men, but not women, with isolated soiling had higher anal resting and squeeze pressures compared with those with overt FI (P < 0.05). Men were less likely to undergo BF when offered compared with women. Baseline symptom severity did not differ between the groups. In men, the absence of an organic cause for the FI and the presence of overt FI, but not isolated soiling, were correlated with improvement in patient satisfaction following BF. The outcomes of 50% reduction in FI episodes, physician assessment, symptoms, and quality of life scores after BF all significantly improved in men similarly to women. We conclude that men, compared with women, with FI have unique clinical features and physiology and are less likely to have investigations and treatment despite successful outcome with BF. Future studies to customize treatment in males and determine barriers to therapy are warranted.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY

Fecal incontinence in men is common, yet data on sex differences in clinical features, physiology, and treatment are scarce. We provide evidence that men, compared with women, with fecal incontinence have unique clinical features and physiology and are less likely to have investigations and treatment despite successful outcome with anorectal biofeedback therapy.

Is electromyography a predictive test of patient response to biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence?

AIM

Biofeedback is effective in more than 70% of patients with fecal incontinence. However, reliable predictors of successful treatment have not been identified. The aim was to identify clinical variables and diagnostic tests, particularly electromyography, that could predict a successful outcome.

METHODS

We included 135 consecutive women with fecal incontinence treated with biofeedback. Clinical evaluation, manometry, ultrasonography, electromyography, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency were performed before therapy. Treatment outcome was assessed using a symptoms diary, Wexner incontinence score and the patient's subjective perception.

RESULTS

According to the symptoms diaries, 106 (78.5%) women had a good clinical result and 29 (21.5%) had a poor result. There were no differences in age, severity and type of fecal incontinence. Maximum resting pressure (39.3 ± 19.1 mmHg vs. 33.7 ± 20.2 mmHg; P = 0.156) and maximum squeeze pressure (91.8 ± 33.2 mmHg vs. 79.8 ± 31.2 mmHg; P = 0.127) were higher in patients having good clinical outcome although the difference was not significant. There were no differences in the presence of sphincter defects or abnormalities in electromyographic recordings. Logistic regression analysis found no independent predictive factor for good clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Biofeedback is effective in more than 75% of patients with fecal incontinence. Clinical characteristics of patients and results of baseline tests have no predictive value of response to therapy. Specifically, we found no association between severity of electromyographic deficit and clinical response.

Pelvic floor rehabilitation in the treatment of fecal incontinence

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a prevalent problem that can drastically affect quality of life. Pelvic floor rehabilitation is an important first-line treatment for patients with FI, and many published case reports and a small number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide limited evidence for its efficacy. Pelvic floor rehabilitation approaches to the treatment of FI include pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, and volumetric training with rectal balloon catheters. Various forms of external electrical stimulation have also been described and may be of added benefit. Behavioral bowel retraining is an important part of a good rehabilitative approach as well. Pelvic floor rehabilitation treatment for FI is thought to be effective and safe, with reported success rates in a majority of studies at 50 to 80%. Many more high-quality RCTs are needed to define optimal treatment protocols.

Current management of fecal incontinence: Choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes

The severity of fecal incontinence widely varies and can have dramatic devastating impacts on a person’s life. Fecal incontinence is common, though it is often under-reported by patients. In addition to standard treatment options, new treatments have been developed during the past decade to attempt to effectively treat fecal incontinence with minimal morbidity. Non-operative treatments include dietary modifications, medications, and biofeedback therapy. Currently used surgical treatments include repair (sphincteroplasty), stimulation (sacral nerve stimulation or posterior tibial nerve stimulation), replacement (artificial bowel sphincter or muscle transposition) and diversion (stoma formation). Newer augmentation treatments such as radiofrequency energy delivery and injectable materials, are minimally invasive tools that may be good options before proceeding to surgery in some patients with mild fecal incontinence. In general, more invasive surgical treatments are now reserved for moderate to severe fecal incontinence. Functional and quality of life related outcomes, as well as potential complications of the treatment must be considered and the treatment of fecal incontinence must be individualized to the patient. General indications, techniques, and outcomes profiles for the various treatments of fecal incontinence are discussed in detail. Choosing the most effective treatment for the individual patient is essential to achieve optimal outcomes in the treatment of fecal incontinence.

Anorectal physiology and testing

A good understanding of anorectal physiology is essential for the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of various anorectal disorders, such as fecal incontinence, constipation, and pain. This article reviews the physiology of the anorectum and details the various investigations used to diagnose anorectal physiology disorders. These anatomic and functional tests include anal manometry, endoanal ultrasound, defecography, balloon expulsion test, magnetic resonance imaging, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, electromyography, and colonic transit studies. Indications for investigations, steps in performing the tests, and interpretation of results are discussed.

The role of anorectal investigations in predicting the outcome of biofeedback in the treatment of faecal incontinence

OBJECTIVE

The current literature does not provide unequivocal evidence on prognostic factors of patients' response to biofeedback for management of faecal incontinence. The aim of this study was to identify independent predictors of patient response to biofeedback.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Baseline demographic characteristics, symptomatology and anorectal investigation reports of 137 patients who completed biofeedback therapy were analysed retrospectively. Short-term response (<3 months) to biofeedback was assessed using subjective criteria (improvement/ no improvement). P Values < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

At univariate analysis, age, duration of symptoms, severity of faecal incontinence, mean maximum squeeze and resting pressure differed significantly (p < 0.05) were associated with patients' response. However, after performing logistic regression analysis age, duration and severity of symptoms were the only variables associated with the outcome (p Values were 0.041, 0.022 and 0.025, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Three independent factors (younger age, shorter duration and lower severity of faecal incontinence) were associated with patient outcome after completing our unit's biofeedback protocol. Anorectal investigations are of questionable value in patient selection for biofeedback therapy.

Fecal incontinence: etiology, evaluation, and treatment

Fecal incontinence is a debilitating problem facing ~2.2% of the U.S. general population over 65 years of age. Etiologic factors include traumatic, neurologic, congenital, and iatrogenic. Most commonly, obstetric trauma causes fecal incontinence as well as poorly performed anorectal surgery or pelvic radiation. Several severity scores and quality of life indexes have been developed to quantify incontinent symptoms. There are several nonsurgical and surgical options for the treatment of fecal incontinence. Biofeedback is among the most successful nonoperative strategies. Depending on the cause, anal sphincter repair, artificial bowel sphincter, and sacral nerve stimulation are used to treat fecal incontinence with some success. Unfortunately, fecal incontinence is an extremely difficult problem to manage: there has not been one, single treatment option that has proven to be both safe and effective in long-term studies.