Electrical Stimulation Therapy in Chronic Functional Constipation: Five Years' Experience in Patients Refractory to Biofeedback Therapy and With Rectal Hyposensitivity.
- Author:
Kee Wook JUNG
1
;
Dong Hoon YANG
;
In Ja YOON
;
So Young SEO
;
Hyun Sook KOO
;
Hyo Jeong LEE
;
Ho Su LEE
;
Ji Beom KIM
;
Jong Wook KIM
;
Soo Kyung PARK
;
Sang Hyoung PARK
;
Kyung Jo KIM
;
Byong Duk YE
;
Jeong Sik BYEON
;
Hwoon Yong JUNG
;
Suk Kyun YANG
;
Jin Ho KIM
;
Seung Jae MYUNG
Author Information
1. Asan Digestive Disease Research Institute, Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. sjmyung@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Biofeedback;
Constipation;
Electric stimulation therapy
- MeSH:
Biofeedback, Psychology;
Constipation;
Electric Stimulation;
Electric Stimulation Therapy;
Humans;
Pelvic Floor;
Sensation
- From:Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility
2013;19(3):366-373
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biofeedback therapy (BFT) can be unsuccessful in constipated patients, even those with pelvic floor dysfunction. Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) has been introduced as a novel therapeutic modality in patients with chronic constipation, especially those who have rectal hyposensitivity. We evaluated the efficacy of EST based on five years' clinical experience. METHODS: From January 2002 to February 2007, 159 patients underwent EST. After exclusion of 12 drop-outs, 147 (M:F = 61:86, 49 +/- 17 years) finished all treatment sessions. Among them, 88 (M:F = 29:59, 49 +/- 17 years) were refractory to BFT without rectal hyposensitivity (RH), and 59 (M:F = 32:27, 54 +/- 17 years) were those with RH. RESULTS: The overall response to EST was 59.2% (87/147) by per-protocol analysis. In the EST-responsive group, overall satisfaction improved significantly (from 7.3 +/- 3.0 to 4.3 +/- 2.5, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the response rate was 64.8% (57/88) in patients refractory to BFT without RH, and 50.8% (30/59) in those with RH. CONCLUSIONS: EST may have additional therapeutic efficacy in patients who are refractory to BFT. EST may also be effective in patients with RH, including restoration of rectal sensation. Therefore, EST could be considered as an alternative choice in patients refractory to BFT and with or without RH.
