Response to Biofeedback Therapy for Patients with Rectal Hyposensitivity.
- Author:
Kee Wook JUNG
1
;
Seung Jae MYUNG
;
Jeong Sik BYEON
;
In Ja YOON
;
Jung Eun KO
;
So Young SEO
;
Soon Man YOON
;
Mi Young DO
;
Do Hoon KIM
;
Benjamin KIM
;
Seunghyun KWON
;
Byong Duk YE
;
Hwoon Yong JUNG
;
Suk Kyun YANG
;
Jin Ho KIM
Author Information
1. Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. sjmyung@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Rectal Hyposensitivity;
Biofeedback;
Anorectal Manometry
- MeSH:
Biofeedback, Psychology;
Colon;
Humans;
Prospective Studies;
Rectum;
Reflex;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Intestinal Research
2008;6(1):56-69
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Rectal hyposensitivity (RH) has been treated with conventional biofeedback therapy (BFT), whereas the effectiveness and long term results of this therapy are not known. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of BFT for patients with RH by conducting a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. METHODS: From June 2004 to March 2007, we enrolled those RH patients who underwent BFT. BFT was performed two or three times every week. Six months after BFT, the clinical response was evaluated by subjective and objective parameters. RESULTS: A total of 82 RH patients underwent BFT. Fifty three patients finished BFT and the other 29 patients dropped out during BFT. Thirty six patients (67.9%) showed responsiveness (R) to BFT and 17 (31.5%) showed non-responsiveness (NR). The characteristics between the two groups showed no difference, except for the "desire to defecate" volume (116.1+/-25.2 in the R group vs. 140.0+/-43.9 in the NR group, p value <0.05) and the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR) (15.6+/-0.5 in the R group R vs. 27.6+/-18.2 in the NR group, p value <0.05). The R group showed a shorter colon transit time compared to NR group. At six months after BFT, a total of 20 patients were interviewed; 15 patients answered that they still had responsiveness (75%). CONCLUSIONS: The patients with RH showed a similar BFT response to that of the constipated patients. However, the patients with a more hyposensitive rectum and a longer colonic transit showed NR to BFT, suggesting RH is an important factor in BFT responsiveness.
