Are There Anorectal Physiologic Factors Prior to Biofeedback Treatment for Constipation that Affect Compliance Rate?.
- Author:
Dong Ho SHIN
1
;
Seung Cheol KIM
;
In Kyoung KIM
;
Hyun Ki HONG
;
Jae Sik JOO
Author Information
1. Kangdong Seoul Colorectal Surgery, Seoul, Korea. joorect@unitel.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Biofeedback treatment;
Compliance;
Laxatives;
Megarectum
- MeSH:
Anal Canal;
Biofeedback, Psychology*;
Clinical Protocols;
Compliance*;
Constipation*;
Defecation;
Humans;
Intussusception;
Laxatives;
Rectocele;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology
2006;22(3):162-168
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The most important factor for the success of biofeedback treatment of constipation is patients' enthusiastic participation and willingness to comply with the treatment protocol. The purpose of this study was to analyze differences among groups of patients classified according to the number of biofeedback sessions and to identify any anorectal physiological and clinical factors related with better compliance with biofeedback treatment. METHODS: From Aug. 2001 to July 2003, 80 patients who had undergone biofeedback treatment for constipation by a single therapist were classified into three groups according to the number of sessions: only one session (Group I, n=26), two or three sessions (Group II, n=27), and more than four sessions (Group III, n=27). We reviewed the clinical and the anorectal physiological characteristics retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean age was 39.1 (range, 8~77) years, and the mean duration of constipation was 7.7 (range, 0.5~30) years and mean frequency of defecation was 2.2 times/week. Patients' pretreatment use of laxatives was significantly lower in Group I (38.5 percent) than in Group II (70.4 percent) or Group III (51.9 percent) (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in anal manometric parameters (mean and maximal resting pressure, maximal squeezing pressure, sensitivity, and rectal capacity). In the cinedefecographic findings, the megarectum was significantly higher in Group III (58.3 percent) than in Group I (38.9 percent) or Group II (27.8 percent) (P=0.02), but other findings of anismus, rectocele, intussusception, and delayed emptying showed no significant differences. The cinedefecographic parameters (anorectal angle, perineal descent, anal canal length, and puborectalis length), were not significantiy different among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We strongly recommend biofeedback treatment for constipation patients who abuse laxatives and/or for whom cinedefecography reveals megarectum.
