Lack of improvement in anorectal manometry parameters after implementation of a pelvic floor/anal sphincter biofeedback in persons with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Effect of biofeedback on improving anorectal manometric parameters in incomplete spinal cord injury is unknown. A short-term biofeedback program investigated any effect on anorectal manometric parameters without correlation to bowel symptoms. METHODS: This prospective uncontrolled interventional study comprised three study subject groups, Group 1: sensory/motor-complete American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A SCI (n = 13); Group 2 (biofeedback group): sensory incomplete AIS B SCI (n = 17) (n = 3), and motor-incomplete AIS C SCI (n = 8), and AIS D SCI (n = 6); and Group 3: able-bodied (AB) controls (n = 12). High-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) was applied to establish baseline characteristics in all subjects for anorectal pressure, volume, length of pressure zones, and duration of sphincter squeeze pressure. SCI participants with motor-incomplete SCI were enrolled in pelvic floor/anal sphincter bowel biofeedback training (2 × 6-week training periods comprised of two training sessions per week for 30-45 min per session). HR-ARM was also performed after each of the 6-week periods of biofeedback training. RESULTS: Compared to motor-complete or motor-incomplete SCI participants, AB subjects had higher mean intra-rectal pressure, maximal sphincteric pressure, residual anal pressure, recto-anal pressure gradient, and duration of squeeze (p < 0.05 for each of the endpoints). No significant difference was evident at baseline between the motor-complete and motor-incomplete SCI groups. In motor-incomplete SCI subjects, the pelvic floor/anal sphincter biofeedback protocol failed to improve HR-ARM parameters. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback training program did not improve anal manometric parameters in subjects with motor-incomplete or sensory-incomplete SCI. Biofeedback did not change physiology, and its effects on symptoms are unknown. INFERENCES: Utility of biofeedback is limited in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury in terms of improving HR-ARM parameters.

The pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX-4 for colorectal liver metastases: a comparative study.

FOLFOX-4 (folinic acid/5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin) chemotherapy is used to treat patients with colorectal liver metastases. We aimed to assess hepatic histopathological responses to neoadjuvant FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases. We selected all patients (n = 54) treated with FOLFOX-4 for colorectal liver metastases between June 2002 and June 2005. Only 25 underwent hepatectomy and formed the study group. Histological responses were assessed in the study group and a matched control group (n = 25) that did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median (IQR) body mass index in the study and control groups was 24 (22-26) and 24 (23-25) kg/m(2), respectively, (P = NS). Complete histological resolution of tumour occurred in six (24%) patients in the study group. Median residual tumour cellularity was less (35 vs 70%) and fibrosis greater (50 vs 5%) in patients in the study group when compared with controls (P < 0.001). The liver surrounding the tumour was steatotic in 17 (68%) patients in the study group and five (20%) controls (P = 0.001). Hepatic sinusoidal dilatation was more pronounced in patients in the study group than in controls (P < 0.001). The response to FOLFOX-4 was associated with tumour necrosis, fibrosis and inflammation. More than two thirds of patients undergoing hepatectomy after FOLFOX-4 had steatosis despite being non-obese.