Lack of benefit of laxatives as adjunctive therapy for functional nonretentive fecal soiling in children. Biofeedback training in treatment of childhood constipation: a randomised controlled study. Biofeedback training for patients with myelomeningocele and fecal incontinence. Randomised controlled trial of biofeedback training in persistent encopresis with anismus. Randomised trial of biofeedback training for encopresis. [Usefulness of biofeedback treatment in children with chronic functional constipation]. Efficiency of biofeedback therapy for chronic constipation in children. A randomized-controlled trial comparing an educational intervention alone vs education and biofeedback in the management of faecal incontinence in women. Modulation of abnormal defecation dynamics by biofeedback treatment in chronically constipated children with encopresis.
To determine whether the combination of laxative treatment and biofeedback therapy (BF) is more effective for management of functional nonretentive fecal soiling than biofeedback therapy alone.
                In a prospective nonblinded study, 48 children were randomized in 2 groups: treatment with oral laxatives (LAX) and 5 sessions of BF (BF + LAX) or 5 sessions of BF alone (BF) during a treatment intervention period of 7 weeks. Biofeedback was performed with perfused manometry catheters and rectal balloon distension. Training focused on awareness of balloon distension and instruction in correct defecation dynamics. Successful treatment was defined as <1 encopresis episode per 2 weeks.
                At the end of the intervention period, the number of encopresis episodes was significantly decreased in both groups: from 7 (2 to 24) to 2 (0 to 17) in the BF group and from 7 (3 to 25) to 2 (0 to 14) in the BF + LAX group. However, children given BF alone had significantly higher success rates than children treated with BF and additional oral laxatives (44% to 11%).
                There is no additional effect of laxative treatment in functional nonretentive fecal soiling. Children treated with BF in combination with laxatives showed a significantly lower success percentage compared with those treated with BF alone. These results suggest that children with functional nonretentive fecal soiling should be treated differently from children with constipation and encopresis. Because abnormal defaecation dynamics, which can be modified by biofeedback, are considered to be the underlying problem in constipation, biofeedback training may be a useful treatment for constipation. This treatment has mainly been studied in uncontrolled trials. We evaluated defaecation dynamics and clinical outcome in chronically constipated children in a randomised study comparing conventional treatment and conventional treatment with biofeedback training.
                Patients, 5 to 16 years old, were referred to the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam by general practitioners, school doctors, paediatricians, and psychiatrists. They had to fulfil at least two of four criteria for paediatric constipation and were included if they had been treated medically for at least one month before randomisation. Patients had a medical history, abdominal and rectal examination, and anorectal manometry at the start and end of the 6-week intervention period. The conventional group received laxative treatment with additional dietary advice, toilet training, and maintenance of a diary of bowel habits. The biofeedback group received the same conventional treatment and additionally five biofeedback training sessions. During the first 3 weeks, patients visited the outpatient clinic weekly; two subsequent visits were twice monthly.
                94 patients were randomised to conventional treatment (CT) and 98 to conventional treatment with additional biofeedback training (CT+BF). Normal defaecation dynamics increased in the CT group from 41% to 52% (not significant) and in the CT+BF group from 38% to 86% (p = 0.001). At 6 weeks, more patients in the CT+BF group showed normal defaecation dynamics, compared to the CT group (p < 0.001). This result was unaltered by controlling for baseline status in a logistic regression model. At 1 year, successful treatment (defaecation frequency > or = 3/week, soiling and/or encopresis < 2/month, and no laxatives) was accomplished in 59% of the CT and 50% of the CT+BF group (p = 0.24). The results were maintained after 1 1/2 years follow-up. No association was found between achievement of normal defaecation dynamics and clinical outcome.
                Additional biofeedback training compared to conventional therapy did not result in higher success rates in chronically constipated children. Furthermore, achievement of normal defaecation dynamics was not associated with success: abnormal defaecation dynamics seem not to play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of childhood constipation. Intensive conventional laxative treatment should remain the first choice in chronically constipated children. 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. 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. To evaluate biofeedback training in children with encopresis and the effect on psychosocial function.
                Prospective controlled randomised study. PATIENT INTERVENTIONS: A multimodal treatment of six weeks. Children were randomised into two groups. Each group received dietary and toilet advice, enemas, oral laxatives, and anorectal manometry. One group also received five biofeedback training sessions.
                Successful treatment was defined as less than two episodes of encopresis, regular bowel movements, and no laxatives. Psychosocial function after treatment was assessed using the Child Behaviour Checklist.
                Children given laxatives and biofeedback training had higher success rates than those who received laxatives alone (39% v 19%) at the end of the intervention period. At 12 and 18 months, however, approximately 50% of children in each group were successfully treated. Abnormal behaviour scores were initially observed in 35% of children. Most children had improved behaviour scores six months after treatment. Children with an initial abnormal behaviour score who were successfully treated had a significant improvement in their behavioural profiles.
                Biofeedback training had no additional effect on the success rate or behaviour scores. Psychosocial problems are present in a subgroup of children with encopresis. The relation between successful treatment and improvement in behavioural function supports the idea that encopresis has an aetiological role in the occurrence and maintenance of behavioural problems in children with encopresis. About 2/3 of constipated children present anal-rectal dyssynergy (ARD) with paradoxical contraction of the external anal sphincter (EAS) during defecation.
                The aim of our study was to answer the question whether additional treatment with biofeedback training (BF) is more effective than traditional treatment. MATERIALS, METHODS: We assessed chronically constipated children who fulfilled the criteria of ARD: recto-sigmoid transit time in Hinton's test with radio-paque markers at least 28.8 h, paradoxical EAS contraction during defecation trials (anorectal manometry). The study included 22 constipated children (16 boys and 6 girls), aged 5 to 14 years (mean 8.1 +/- SD 2.8). Children were randomly divided in two groups. In group I at the start of the study children had four day-by-day sessions of BF training based on the anorectal manometry and the surface EMG. Children from group II received only traditional treatment. The follow-up was 6 months. Improvement was estimated based on manometric data, number and quality of stools.
                In the group I after one month, more manometric parameters, significantly improved as compared to the II group. During the observation period the number of stools increased and their quality improved in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the above mentioned symptoms.
                Treatment with BF can improve rectal sensation and particularly defecation dynamics, faster than the traditional method. There is no significant effect of additional BF treatment on such objective symptoms as the number and quality of stools. Chronic constipation is a common disorder in childhood. The underlying mechanisms responsible for chronic constipation remain unknown. Conventional methods of treatment often fail to produce satisfactory results. Favorable effects of biofeedback treatment for constipation have been suggested, however, with variable results reported in the literature. The main aim of the study was to evaluate biofeedback versus conventional therapeutic protocol in the treatment of chronic constipation over a short period of time (3 months). Forty-nine children with chronic idiopathic constipation, 24 allocated to conventional and 25 to biofeedback therapy were included in the study. Thorough history data on bowel function and symptoms, anorectal status and manometric testing were collected before and after treatment. Follow up consisted of a structured interview. Mean age was 94 and 92 months in the children treated by the conventional and biofeedback method, respectively. The initial prevalence of abnormal defecation dynamics was 58% and 56% in the group children allocated to conventional and biofeedback therapy, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. After the treatment, the values of rectal sensation threshold, critical volume, and recto-anal inhibitory reflex volume were significantly higher, and the prevalence of abnormal defecation dynamics was significantly lower in the group on biofeedback therapy. Biofeedback is an effective method of treatment for chronic constipation in children in short term. Therapeutic results are especially favorable in the recovery of abnormal anorectal dynamics and manometric parameters. There is no clear evidence for long-term benefits of biofeedback therapy. Biofeedback (BF) training is an accepted therapy in the treatment of faecal incontinence (FI) despite a paucity of data demonstrating benefit. This study aims to determine whether BF has any specific effect above and beyond an educational intervention. Twenty-three women with regular and frequent idiopathic FI were randomized to education and pelvic exercise vs education and BF therapy. Complete data is available for 18 women. Overall, 61% of participants demonstrated a complete response. There was no difference in response rate between treatment arms. Women with FI demonstrate a good response to treatment with education and exercise and education plus BF thus questioning the specific effect of BF. To determine whether outcome in chronically constipated and encopretic children with abnormal defecation dynamics could be improved with biofeedback training, we randomly assigned patients, 5 to 16 years of age, to receive conventional treatment alone (n = 19) or conventional plus biofeedback treatment (n = 22) and evaluated physiologic outcome at 7 months and clinical outcome at 7 and 12 months. Eighty-six percent of patients learned normal defecation dynamics with up to six biofeedback sessions. At 7 months, 13% of conventionally treated and 77% of biofeedback-treated patients had normal defecation dynamics (p less than 0.01); one conventionally treated (5%) and 12 biofeedback-treated patients (55%) had recovered (p less than 0.01). Learning normal defecation dynamics was correlated with clinical recovery (p less than 0.01). At 7 months, 11% of patients with normal defecation dynamics after biofeedback treatment had abnormal defecation dynamics, and 71% of the biofeedback-treated patients with normal defecation dynamics recovered. At 12 months, 16% of conventionally treated and 50% of biofeedback-treated patients had recovered (p less than 0.05). Balloon defecation did not improve significantly in those who learned normal defecation dynamics. Therefore the ability to defecate balloons is apparently not dependent on the normal function of the external and sphincter and pelvic floor muscles alone. Biofeedback treatment is complementary to a good conventional therapeutic regimen in patients with abnormal defecation dynamics.
There is no evidence that biofeedback training adds any benefit to conventional treatment in the management of functional faecal incontinence in children. There was not enough evidence on which to assess the effects of biofeedback for the management of organic faecal incontinence. There is some evidence that behavioural interventions plus laxative therapy, rather than laxative therapy alone, improves continence in children with functional faecal incontinence associated with constipation.