BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study was aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who developed constipation after radical hysterectomy or delivery and to investigate the results of biofeedback therapy for these patients. METHODS: Thirty-five chronic constipation patients with radical hysterectomy (radical hysterectomy group), 27 chronic constipation patients with delivery (delivery group) and 27 constipation patients with no history of hysterectomy or delivery (control group) were included. Clinical characteristics of these patients, including the results of biofeedback therapy, were analyzed. RESULTS: The delivery group showed higher rates of pelvic floor dyssynergia than the control group (14/27, 52% vs. 6/27, 22%; p<0.05). The prevalence of slow transit constipation was lower in the radical hysterectomy group and delivery group than in the control group (7/35, 20% and 5/27, 19% vs. 12/27, 44%; p<0.05). The prevalence of anatomical abnormalities was not different between the groups. The radical hysterectomy group showed higher rate of obstructive sensation and the delivery group showed higher rate of hard stool and digital maneuvers. The biofeedback therapy was effective in 10 out of 12 patients (91%) among the radical hysterectomy and delivery group. CONCLUSIONS: Radical hysterectomy and delivery seem to induce functional constipation, which may be caused by anorectal dysfunction such as pelvic floor dyssynergia. The biofeedback treatment was effective in functional constipation after radical hysterectomy or delivery.
Adult ; Aged ; Chronic Disease ; Constipation/diagnosis/*etiology/therapy ; Delivery, Obstetric/*adverse effects ; English Abstract ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/*adverse effects ; Middle Aged

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biofeedback therapy has been widely used for the treatment of constipated patients. However, there are only a few reports about the clinical factors that can predict the effectiveness of biofeedback therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors before the initiation of biofeedback treatment in constipated patients. METHODS: Biofeedback treatment was performed in 114 patients with constipation. After classifying the patients into two groups, responder and non-responder by subjective and objective parameters, univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to evaluate the factors associated with effectiveness of biofeedback therapy. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (74.6%) responded to biofeedback therapy. Pre-treatment balloon expulsion test, paradoxical contraction on manometry, defecation index and anal residual pressure during straining were the factors that influenced the results of biofeedback treatment. On multivariate analysis, defecation index (odds ratio=67.5, p<0.05) and paradoxical contraction on manometry (odds ratio=0.053, p<0.05) were the factors that showed significant difference between the responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that several pre-treatment prognostic factors are associated with response to biofeedback for the constipated patients. Using prognostic factors, we may be able to evaluate the patterns of pelvic floor dysfunction and responsiveness of biofeedback therapy for the patients with constipation.
*Biofeedback, Psychology ; Chronic Disease ; Constipation/physiopathology/*therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pelvic Floor/physiopathology ; Treatment Outcome