Randomized clinical trial of intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback physiotherapy with intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback augmented with electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter in the early treatment of postpartum fecal incontinence. A components analysis of biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Randomized, controlled trial of anal electrical stimulation for fecal incontinence. A prospective randomized trial comparing four biofeedback techniques for patients with faecal incontinence. A prospective, randomized study comparing the effect of augmented biofeedback with sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence after obstetric trauma. Biofeedback treatment of fecal incontinence in geriatric patients. Randomised controlled trial of biofeedback training in persistent encopresis with anismus. Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback for fecal incontinence. Biofeedback training for patients with myelomeningocele and fecal incontinence.
The purpose of this study was to compare intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback alone with intra-anal biofeedback that was augmented with electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter in the treatment of postpartum fecal incontinence. A secondary aim was to examine the impact of the treatment on continence-related quality of life.
                Sixty symptomatic women were assigned randomly to receive intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback or electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter once weekly for 12 weeks and to perform daily pelvic floor exercises between treatments. Therapeutic response was evaluated with a symptom questionnaire to determine continence score, anal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound scanning. Quality of life was assessed before and after treatment with a validated questionnaire.
                Fifty-four women completed the treatment; 52 women (96%) had ultrasonic evidence of an external anal sphincter defect. After the treatment, both groups demonstrated significant improvement in continence score (P < .001) and in squeeze anal pressures (P < .04). Resting anal pressures did not alter significantly. Quality of life improved after the completion of physiotherapy, but there were no differences in outcome between intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback and electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter.
                Intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback therapy was associated with improved continence and quality of life in women with altered fecal continence after delivery. The addition of electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter did not enhance symptomatic outcome. Fecal incontinence is a socially disabling symptom for which rectosphincteric biofeedback has been reported to be dramatically effective. The most commonly employed biofeedback procedure incorporates three separate and potentially effective components: exercise of the external sphincter muscle, training in discrimination of rectal sensations, and training synchrony of the internal and external sphincter responses. This paper reports the results of single case experiments employed with eight incontinent patients to examine the contributions of each of these components. All eight patients improved, but only one required the biofeedback procedure as it was originally described. Three responded to sensory discrimination training, one to exercise training, and one to the training of synchronous sphincteric responses; three recovered independently of the effects of biofeedback. Despite the achievement of continence, the rectosphincteric reflexes following treatment continued to be abnormal in every case. These findings suggest that the character of the external sphincter response to rectal distension is an unreliable index of sphincter function and that exercise and sensory discrimination training procedures are effective for some cases of fecal incontinence. Anal electric stimulation has been described as effective for fecal incontinence in several case series, but no study has addressed possible mechanism of benefit. We wished to examine whether anal electric stimulation, using an anal probe electrode, used on a daily basis at home for eight weeks, in the absence of any adjunctive exercises or advice, would improve symptoms of fecal incontinence and anal sphincter pressures when compared with "sham" electric stimulation.
                Ninety patients (9 males, 81 females), with median age of 55 (range, 30-77) years were randomized, 47 to active anal stimulation at 35 Hz and 43 to "sham" stimulation at 1 Hz. Outcome measures included a one-week bowel diary, symptom questionnaire, manometry, and patients' evaluation of outcome.
                Seventy patients completed the study. On an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between the two groups on any of the outcome measures after eight weeks. Of those who completed stimulation, 44 (63 percent) felt the stimulation had improved their continence. Those with intact anal sphincters were not likely to rate their change more positively than those with sphincter disruption (P=0.71). Median patient rating of bowel control increased from 3 of 10 before stimulation to 5 of 10 after stimulation (P=0.001).
                Eight weeks of anal electric stimulation was rated by patients as having improved their bowel control to a modest extent. There was no statistically significant difference detected between the groups, suggesting that 1 Hz was as effective as 35 Hz. This raises the possibility that the main effect is not sphincter contraction but sensitization of the patient to the anal area, or simply the effect of intervening per se. Home electric stimulation is a relatively cheap and generally well-tolerated therapy in the conservative treatment of fecal incontinence. The aim of this study was to compare four methods of biofeedback therapy for patients with faecal incontinence (FI).
                All patients with FI who were ineligible for surgical management were prospectively randomized using a computer generated randomization method into one of four protocols: 1, out-patient intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback training (EMG); 2, EMG plus intrarectal balloon training (BT); 3, EMG plus a home trainer (HT); and 4, EMG, BT and HT. All patients received weekly, 1 h, out-patient biofeedback training. Success for patients with FI was measured by a reduction in incontinent episodes (days/week). In all instances, patients maintained a daily log in which documentation was recorded regarding each bowel evacuation.
                Forty patients were randomized into one of the four groups. Six patients withdrew after one session and were not included in the analysis. Therefore, 34 patients (23 female and 11 male) with a mean incontinence score of 12 (range 7-14) were randomized to one of the four groups (n=8, 8, 8, and 10, respectively). There was a statistically significant reduction in incontinent episodes for all groups. However, there were no significant differences in treatment outcome found in comparisons among the four groups.
                Biofeedback therapy significantly improves FI. Moreover, EMG training was as effective alone as was the addition of HT, BT or both for the treatment of FI. This study was designed to compare prospectively the effects of augmented biofeedback with those of sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence and anorectal manometry after obstetric trauma.
                A consecutive cohort of 40 females with impaired fecal continence after obstetric anal sphincter injury were recruited from a dedicated perineal clinic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either augmented biofeedback or sensory biofeedback alone. All patients were assessed before and after twelve weeks of biofeedback training, using a fecal continence questionnaire and anorectal manometry.
                Thirty-nine of 40 females recruited completed the study. Continence scores improved in both treatment groups, but the results were better for those who received augmented biofeedback. Anorectal manometry was unchanged by sensory biofeedback, whereas anal resting and squeeze pressures increased with augmented biofeedback. No change in anal vector symmetry was observed in either group.
                Augmented biofeedback training is superior to sensory biofeedback alone in the treatment of impaired fecal continence after obstetric trauma. Eighteen fecally incontinent geriatric patients were first treated for constipation as a possible cause of incontinence, and the 13 who remained incontinent were provided sphincter biofeedback training. Half the patients were instructed to perform 50 sphincter exercises per day for a four-week period prior to the start of biofeedback training to determine whether such exercises would improve bowel control in the absence of biofeedback training. Sphincter exercises alone did not produce clinical improvements and did not significantly increase the strength of sphincter contractions. Biofeedback training did significantly augment sphincter strength and was associated with greater than 75 per cent decreases in incontinence for 10 (77 per cent) of the patients. Improvements were maintained in 60 per cent at six months and in 42 per cent at one year. Thus biofeedback training appears to be of specific value in the treatment of fecal incontinence in geriatric patients. Paradoxical external anal sphincter contraction during attempted defecation (anismus) is thought to be an important contributor to chronic faecal retention and encopresis in children. Biofeedback training can be used to teach children to abolish this abnormal contraction.
                A randomised controlled trial in medical treatment resistant and/or treatment dependent children with anismus using surface electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback training to determine whether such training produces sustained faecal continence. Up to four sessions of biofeedback training were conducted at weekly intervals for each patient. Anorectal manometry was performed before randomisation and six months later. Parents of patients completed the "child behaviour checklist" (CBCL) before randomisation and at follow up.
                Sixty eight children underwent anorectal manometry and EMG. Of these, 29 had anismus (ages 4-14 years) and were randomised to either EMG biofeedback training and conventional medical treatment (BFT) (n = 14) or to conventional medical treatment alone (n = 15). All but one child were able to learn relaxation of the external anal sphincter on attempted defecation. At six months' follow up, laxative free remission had been sustained in two of 14 patients in the BFT group and in two of 15 controls (95% confidence interval (CI) on difference, -24% to 26%). Remission or improvement occurred in four of 14 patients in the BFT group and six of 15 controls (95% CI on difference, -46% to 23%). Of subjects available for repeat anorectal manometry and EMG at six months, six of 13 in the BFT group still demonstrated anismus v 11 of 13 controls (95% CI on difference, -75% to -1%). Of the four patients in full remission at six months, only one (in the BFT group) did not exhibit anismus. Rectal hyposensitivity was not associated with remission or improvement in either of the groups. Mean CBCL total behaviour problem scores were not significantly different between the BFT and control groups, but there was a significant improvement in CBCL school scale scores in the BFT group, and this improvement was significantly greater than that seen in the control group.
                The result of this study, together with those reported in other controlled trials, argues against using biofeedback training in children with encopresis. Behavioral treatment (biofeedback) has been reported to improve fecal incontinence but has not been compared with standard care.
                A total of 171 patients with fecal incontinence were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: (1) standard care (advice); (2) advice plus instruction on sphincter exercises; (3) hospital-based computer-assisted sphincter pressure biofeedback; and (4) hospital biofeedback plus the use of a home electromyelogram biofeedback device. Outcome measures included diary, symptom questionnaire, continence score, patient's rating of change, quality of life (short-form 36 and disease specific), psychologic status (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and anal manometry.
                Biofeedback yielded no greater benefit than standard care with advice (53% improved in group 3 vs. 54% in group 1). There was no difference between the groups on any of the following measures: episodes of incontinence decreased from a median of 2 to 0 per week (P < 0.001). Continence score (worst = 20) decreased from a median of 11 to 8 (P < 0.001). Disease-specific quality of life, short-form 36 (vitality, social functioning, and mental health), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale all significantly improved. Patients improved resting, squeeze, and sustained squeeze pressures (all P < 0.002). These improvements were largely maintained 1 year after finishing treatment.
                Conservative therapy for fecal incontinence improves continence, quality of life, psychologic well-being, and anal sphincter function. Benefit is maintained in the medium term. Neither pelvic floor exercises nor biofeedback was superior to standard care supplemented by advice and education. This study evaluated the efficacy of biofeedback training for fecal in continence in patients with myelomeningocele. 12 patients were randomized to receive conventional treatment alone, or in conjunction with biofeedback. Anorectal manometric functions were evaluated before and after treatment, six and 12 months later. 16 control children were also studied. Three of eight patients in the biofeedback group and three of the four given conventional treatment alone reported greater than or equal to 75 per cent improvement in frequency of soiling 12 months later. Biofeedback training did not improve anal squeeze, rectal sensation or continence of rectal infused saline. The number of patients who improved in both treatment groups was not different.
The limited number of identified trials together with methodological weaknesses of many do not allow a definitive assessment of the role of anal sphincter exercises and biofeedback therapy in the management of people with faecal incontinence. We found some evidence that biofeedback and electrical stimulation may enhance the outcome of treatment compared to electrical stimulation alone or exercises alone. Exercises appear to be less effective than an implanted sacral nerve stimulator. While there is a suggestion that some elements of biofeedback therapy and sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, this is not certain. Larger well-designed trials are needed to enable safe conclusions.