Biofeedback vs. electrostimulation in the treatment of postdelivery anal incontinence: a randomized, clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of biofeedback and electrostimulation in a randomized, clinical trial for the treatment of patients with postdelivery anal incontinence. METHODS: Forty-nine females who sustained third-degree or fourth-degree perineal rupture with a mean age of 36 (range, 22-44) years were included in the study. The females were randomized to biofeedback or electrostimulation treatment. Forty females completed the study: 19 in the biofeedback and 21 in the electrostimulation group. Biofeedback or electrostimulation sessions were performed two times daily for eight weeks in each group. Wexner incontinence score, fecal incontinence quality of life scores, and reduced quality of life on visual analog scale were registered before and after treatment. Patients' self-rating of treatment effect also was registered in both groups. The primary outcome measure was the Wexner incontinence score. RESULTS: There were no differences in treatment effect between groups. Comparing pretreatment status to posttreatment in each group showed no improvement in Wexner score, reduced quality of life, or any of the fecal incontinence quality of life scores. Patients' self-rating of the treatment effect, however, showed a subjective improvement of symptoms both in the biofeedback and in the electrostimulation group (median, 7 vs. 5.) CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there was no difference in effect between biofeedback and electrostimulation. Neither biofeedback nor electrostimulation treatments improved Wexner incontinence score, reduced quality of life, or fecal incontinence quality of life scores. Both treatments resulted in improvement of patients' subjective perception of incontinence control.

Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: difference in outcome for low and high rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This prospective study was designed to assess the outcome through the first five years after the introduction of total mesorectal excision in 1993 in a Norwegian central hospital, with special regard to the difference between low (< or =6 cm from anal verge) and high (>6 cm) rectal cancers. METHODS: A total of 140 patients (81 males; median age, 64 (range, 29-87) years) underwent surgery for rectal cancer under curative intention. RESULTS: Local recurrence rates were 8 of 44 (18 percent) for the low cancers and 5 of 96 (5 percent) for the high, a statistically significant difference (P = 0.0014). Corresponding numbers when the R1 resections are excluded were 5 of 36 (13 percent) for the low and 4 of 92 (4 percent) for the high cancers (P = 0.002). The five-year survival after R0 resections of cancers <6 cm was significantly reduced compared with those >6 cm. The five-year overall survival for the whole material was 72 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery alone for rectal cancer can achieve overall good results, with five-year overall survival of 72 percent. The prognosis of the cancers of the lower rectum seems to be inherently different from the tumors of the higher level, both concerning local recurrence and five-year survival, suggesting different biologic behavior of the two cancers.