Optimizing the Utility of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosis and Therapy: A Roundtable Review and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anorectal manometry (ARM) is a comprehensive diagnostic tool for evaluating patients with constipation, fecal incontinence, or anorectal pain; however, it is not widely utilized for reasons that remain unclear. The aim of this roundtable discussion was to critically examine the current clinical practices of ARM and biofeedback therapy by physicians and surgeons in both academic and community settings. METHODS: Leaders in medical and surgical gastroenterology and physical therapy with interest in anorectal disorders were surveyed regarding practice patterns and utilization of these technologies. Subsequently, a roundtable was held to discuss survey results, explore current diagnostic and therapeutic challenges with these technologies, review the literature, and generate consensus-based recommendations. RESULTS: ARM identifies key pathophysiological abnormalities such as dyssynergic defecation, anal sphincter weakness, or rectal sensory dysfunction, and is a critical component of biofeedback therapy, an evidence-based treatment for patients with dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence. Additionally, ARM has the potential to enhance health-related quality of life and reduce healthcare costs. However, it has significant barriers that include a lack of education and training of healthcare providers regarding the utility and availability of ARM and biofeedback procedures, as well as challenges with condition-specific testing protocols and interpretation. Additional barriers include understanding when to perform, where to refer, and how to use these technologies, and confusion over billing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming these challenges with appropriate education, training, collaborative research, and evidence-based guidelines for ARM testing and biofeedback therapy could significantly enhance patient care of anorectal disorders.

Dyssynergic Defecation and Other Evacuation Disorders.

Constipated patients are frequently referred to gastroenterologists for symptoms refractory to lifestyle modifications and laxatives. Dyssynergic defecation, the dyscoordination of rectoanal, abdominal, and pelvic floor muscles to facilitate defecation, is a major cause of refractory primary constipation. Understanding of the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of dyssynergic defecation and other evacuation disorders will allow providers to effectively manage these patients. This review focuses on the definition, pathophysiology, evaluation, and treatment of dyssynergic defecation and other evacuation disorders. Emerging treatments for these disorders include home biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation and translumbosacral neuromodulation therapy for levator ani syndrome.

Barostat or syringe-assisted sensory biofeedback training for constipation with rectal hyposensitivity: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rectal hyposensitivity (RH) is a well-known pathophysiological dysfunction in chronic constipation. Whether biofeedback training improves RH and restores bowel function is unknown. AIM: To investigate the efficacy of barostat-assisted sensory training (BAST) with syringe-assisted sensory training (SAST) in patients with RH in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with RH and chronic constipation (Rome III) were randomized to receive 6 biweekly sessions of BAST or SAST. Verbal/visual feedback was provided during repeated rectal distensions to improve defecation desire/urge and first sensations with either 10-cm balloon connected to barostat (BAST) or 4-cm balloon connected to syringe and manometry probe (SAST). Sensory thresholds, bowel symptoms, and therapist and patient's rating of treatments were compared. The primary outcome (responders) was the improvement in ≥2 sensory thresholds. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 32 received BAST, 34 received SAST, and 56 completed study. There were significantly more responders in BAST group than SAST (78% vs. 53%, p = 0.0320). Rectal sensation normalized in 81% with BAST compared to 56% with SAST (p = 0.0270). When compared to baseline, desire and urge to defecate thresholds and bowel satisfaction improved with BAST (p = 0.0013; p = 0.0002; p = 0.0001) and SAST (p = 0.0012; p = 0.0001; p < 0.0001) and number of complete spontaneous bowel movements with BAST (p = 0.0029) but without inter-group differences. Therapists rated BAST as superior to SAST (p < 0.0001), but patients rated both equally. CONCLUSIONS: Sensory biofeedback training was effective and significantly improved rectal sensation and constipation symptoms. Although both techniques were useful, the novel BAST was more efficacious and easier to administer for treating RH.

Randomized controlled trial of home biofeedback therapy versus office biofeedback therapy for fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Biofeedback therapy is useful for treatment of fecal incontinence (FI), but is not widely available and labor intensive. We investigated if home biofeedback therapy (HBT) is non-inferior to office biofeedback therapy (OBT). METHODS: Patients with FI (≥1 episode/week) were randomized to HBT or OBT for 6 weeks. HBT was performed daily using novel device that provided resistance training and electrical stimulation with voice-guided instructions. OBT consisted of six weekly sessions. Both methods involved anal strength, endurance, and coordination training. Primary outcome was change in weekly FI episodes. FI improvement was assessed with stool diaries, validated instruments (FISI, FISS, and ICIQ-B), and anorectal manometry using intention-to-treat analysis. KEY RESULTS: Thirty (F/M = 26/4) FI patients (20 in HBT, 10 in OBT) participated. Weekly FI episodes decreased significantly after HBT (Δ ± 95% confidence interval: 4.7 ± 1.8, compared with baseline, p = 0.003) and OBT (3.7 ± 1.6, p = 0.0003) and HBT was non-inferior to OBT (p = 0.2). The FISI and FISS scores improved significantly in HBT group (p < 0.02). Bowel pattern, bowel control, and quality of life (QOL) domains (ICIQ-B) improved significantly in HBT arm (p < 0.023). Resting and maximum squeeze sphincter pressures significantly improved in both HBT and OBT groups and sustained squeeze pressure in HBT, without group differences. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Home biofeedback therapy is non-inferior to OBT for FI treatment. Home biofeedback is safe, effective, improves QOL, and through increased access could facilitate improved management of FI.

Review article: diagnosis, management and patient perspectives of the spectrum of constipation disorders.

BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation is a common, heterogeneous disorder with multiple symptoms and pathophysiological mechanisms. Patients are often referred to a gastroenterology provider after laxatives fail. However, there is limited knowledge of the spectrum and management of constipation disorders. AIM: To discuss the latest understanding of the spectrum of constipation disorders, tools for identifying a pathophysiologic-based diagnosis in the specialist setting, treatment options and the patient's perspective of constipation. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed for constipation diagnostic criteria, diagnostic tools and approved treatments. The authors provided insight from their own practices. RESULTS: Clinical assessment, stool diaries and Rome IV diagnostic criteria can facilitate diagnosis, evaluate severity and distinguish between IBS with constipation, chronic idiopathic constipation and dyssynergic defecation. Novel smartphone applications can help track constipation symptoms. Rectal examinations, anorectal manometry and balloon expulsion, assessments of neuromuscular function with colonic transit time and colonic manometry can provide mechanistic understanding of underlying pathophysiology. Treatments include lifestyle and diet changes, biofeedback therapy and pharmacological agents. Several classes of laxatives, as well as prokinetic and prosecretory agents, are available; here we describe their mechanisms of action, efficacy and side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Constipation includes multiple overlapping subtypes identifiable using detailed history, current diagnostic tools and smartphone applications. Recognition of individual subtype(s) could pave the way for optimal, evidence-based treatments by a gastroenterology provider.

Efficacy and Safety of Over-the-Counter Therapies for Chronic Constipation: An Updated Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for chronic constipation and provide evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials of ≥4-week duration that evaluated OTC preparations between 2004 and 2020. Studies were scored using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria (0-5 scale) including randomization, blinding, and withdrawals. The strengths of evidence were adjudicated within each therapeutic category, and recommendations were graded (A, B, C, D, and I) based on the level of evidence (level I, good; II, fair; or III, poor). RESULTS: Of 1,297 studies identified, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide. Diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and abdominal pain were common adverse events, but no serious adverse events were reported. DISCUSSION: The spectrum of OTC products has increased and quality of evidence has improved, but methodological issues including variability in study design, primary outcome measures, trial duration, and small sample sizes remain. We found good evidence to recommend polyethylene glycol or senna as first-line laxatives and moderate evidence supporting fiber supplements, fruits, stimulant laxatives, and magnesium-based products. For others, further validation with more rigorously designed studies is warranted.

Translumbosacral Neuromodulation Therapy for Fecal Incontinence: A Randomized Frequency Response Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Treatments for fecal incontinence (FI) remain unsatisfactory because they do not remedy the underlying multifactorial dysfunction(s) including anorectal neuropathy. The aim of this study was to investigate the optimal dose frequency, clinical effects, and safety of a novel treatment, translumbosacral neuromodulation therapy (TNT), aimed at improving neuropathy. METHODS: Patients with FI were randomized to receive 6 sessions of weekly TNT treatments consisting of 600 repetitive magnetic stimulations over each of 2 lumbar and 2 sacral sites with either 1, 5, or 15 Hz frequency. Stool diaries, FI severity indices, anorectal neurophysiology and sensorimotor function, and quality of life were compared. Primary outcome measure was the change in FI episodes/week. Responders were patients with ≥50% decrease in weekly FI episodes. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with FI participated. FI episodes decreased significantly (∆ ±95% confidence interval, 4.2 ± 2.8 (1 Hz); 2 ± 1.7 (5 Hz); 3.4 ± 2.5 (15 Hz); P < 0.02) in all 3 groups when compared with baseline. The 1 Hz group showed a significantly higher (P = 0.04) responder rate (91 ± 9.1%) when compared with the 5 Hz group (36 ± 18.2%) or 15 Hz (55 ± 18.2%); no difference was found between the 5 and 15 Hz groups (P = 0.667). Anal neuropathy, squeeze pressure, and rectal capacity improved significantly only in the 1 Hz (P < 0.05) group compared with baseline, but not in other groups. Quality of life domains improved significantly (P < 0.05) with 1 and 5 Hz groups. No device-related serious adverse events were noted. DISCUSSION: TNT significantly improves FI symptoms in the short term, and the 1 Hz frequency was overall better than 5 and 15 Hz. Both anorectal neuropathy and physiology significantly improved, demonstrating mechanistic improvement. TNT is a promising, novel, safe, efficacious, and noninvasive treatment for FI (see Visual Abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B598).

Effects of the vibrating capsule on colonic circadian rhythm and bowel symptoms in chronic idiopathic constipation.

BACKGROUND: Constipated patients remain dissatisfied with current treatments suggesting a need for alternative therapies. AIM: Evaluate the mechanistic effects of oral vibrating capsule in chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) by examining the temporal relationships between the onset of vibrations, complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM), and circadian rhythm. METHODS: In post hoc analyses of two double-blind studies, CIC patients (Rome III) were randomized to receive 5 active or sham capsules/week for 8 weeks. The capsules were programmed for single vibration (study 1) or two vibration sessions with two modes, 8 hours apart (study 2). Daily electronic diaries assessed stool habit and percentage of CSBMs associated with vibrations. Responders were patients with ≥ 1 CSBM per week over baseline. RESULTS: 250 patients were enrolled (active = 133, sham = 117). During and within 3 hours of vibration, there were significantly more % CSBMs in the active vs. sham group (50% vs. 42%; P = .0018). In study 2, there were two CSBM peaks associated with vibration sessions. Significantly more % CSBMs occurred in active mode 1 (21.5%) vs. sham (11.5%); (P = .0357). Responder rates did not differ in study 1 (active vs. sham: 26.9% vs. 35.9%, P = .19) or study 2 (mode 1 vs. sham: 50% vs. 31.8%, P = .24; mode 2 vs. sham: 38.1% vs. 31.8%, P = .75). Device was well-tolerated barring mild vibration sensation. CONCLUSIONS: Vibrating capsule may increase CSBMs possibly by enhancing the physiologic effects of waking and meals, and augmenting circadian rhythm, although responder rate was not different from sham. Two vibration sessions were associated with more CSBMs.

Home Biofeedback for the Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation: Does It Improve Quality of Life and Is It Cost-Effective?

OBJECTIVES: Biofeedback therapy, whether administered at home or in office settings, is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD). Whether home biofeedback improves quality of life (QOL) and is cost-effective when compared with office biofeedback is unknown. METHODS: QOL was assessed in 8 domains (SF-36) at baseline and after treatment (3 months), alongside economic evaluation during a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing home and office biofeedback in patients with DD (Rome III). Costs related to both biofeedback programs were estimated from the hospital financial records, study questionnaires, and electronic medical records. A conversion algorithm (Brazier) was used to calculate the patient's quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from SF-36 responses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental costs per QALY between the treatment arms. RESULTS: One hundred patients (96 female patients, 50 in each treatment arm) with DD participated. Six of the 8 QOL domains improved (P < 0.05) in office biofeedback, whereas 4 of the 8 domains improved (P < 0.05) in home biofeedback; home biofeedback was noninferior to office biofeedback. The median cost per patient was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for home biofeedback ($1,112.39; interquartile range (IQR), $826-$1,430) than for office biofeedback ($1,943; IQR, $1,622-$2,369), resulting in a cost difference of $830.11 The median QALY gained during the trial was 0.03 for office biofeedback and 0.07 for home biofeedback (P = NS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,752.75 in favor of home biofeedback. DISCUSSION: Biofeedback therapy significantly improves QOL in patients with DD regardless of home or office setting. Home biofeedback is a cost-effective treatment option for DD compared with office biofeedback, and it offers the potential of treating many more patients in the community.

Cortico-anorectal, Spino-anorectal, and Cortico-spinal Nerve Conduction and Locus of Neuronal Injury in Patients With Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The neuropathophysiology of fecal incontinence (FI) is incompletely understood. We examined the efferent brain-anorectal and spino-anorectal motor-evoked potentials (MEP) to characterize the locus of neuronal injury in patients with FI. METHODS: We performed bilateral transcranial, translumbar, and transsacral magnetic stimulations in 27 patients with FI (19 female) and 31 healthy individuals (controls, 20 female) from 2015 through 2017. MEPs were recorded simultaneously from the rectum and anus using 4 ring electrodes. The difference in MEP latencies between the transcranial (TMS) and translumbar transsacral magnetic stimulations was calculated as cortico-spinal conduction time. MEP data were compared between patients with FI and controls. Patients filled out questionnaires that assessed the severity and effects of FI. RESULTS: The MEP latencies with TMS were significantly longer in patients with FI than controls at most sites, and on both sides (P < .05). Almost all translumbar and transsacral MEP latencies were significantly prolonged in patients with FI vs controls (P < .01). The cortico-spinal conduction time were similar, on both sides, between patients with FI and controls. Ninety-three percent of patients had 1 or more abnormal translumbar and transsacral latencies, but neuropathy was patchy and variable, and not associated with sex or anal sphincter function or defects. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FI have significant neuropathy that affects the cortico-anorectal and spino-anorectal efferent pathways. The primary loci are the lumbo-rectal, lumbo-anal, sacro-rectal, and sacro-anal nerves; the cortico-spinal segment appears intact. Peripheral spino-anal and spino-rectal neuropathy might therefore contribute to the pathogenesis of FI.

Home-based versus office-based biofeedback therapy for constipation with dyssynergic defecation: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Office-based biofeedback therapy is effective for constipation with dyssynergic defecation, but must be performed by skilled staff, is only available in selected centres, and requires multiple visits. The efficacy of home-based biofeedback therapy is unknown. We compared clinical and subjective outcomes with home-based and office-based approaches. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, eligible patients were adult outpatients (age 18-80 years) who met the Rome III criteria for functional constipation and who had been referred to a tertiary-care centre after non-response to routine management, and who had dyssynergic defecation. Patients were randomly assigned according to a schedule generated in advance by the study biostatistician, in permuted blocks of four, to receive office-based or home-based biofeedback therapy. Office-based biofeedback comprised therapist-guided pelvic floor training for six sessions over 3 months (visits every 2 weeks). Home-based biofeedback comprised 20 min self-training sessions twice per day, in which a self-inserted probe was used to provide visual feedback via a handheld monitoring device of anal sphincter pressure and push effort. Patients recorded in diaries the time of each defecation attempt, stool consistency, straining effort, feeling of incomplete evacuation, need for digital assistance with stooling, and satisfaction with bowel function, from 1 week before enrolment to the end of follow-up. Treatment responders were defined post hoc as those with normalisation of dyssynergic defecation and an increase in the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week by 3 months. Cost outcomes calculated from health-care costs and loss of salary were assessed from hospital billing and medical records and questionnaires. Primary outcome measures were the presence of a dyssynergic pattern during attempted defecation, balloon expulsion time, the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, and satisfaction with bowel function, assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03202771. FINDINGS: Of 300 patients screened we enrolled 100, from Jan 7, 2005, to Jan 31, 2010. 83 patients completed training (38 [76%] of 50 in the home-based biofeedback group and 45 [90%] of 50 in the office-based biofeedback group). 34 (68%) patients in the home-based group and 35 (70%) in the office-based group were classified as responders. All primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline in the two treatment groups (all p<0·0001). Home-based biofeedback therapy was non-inferior to office-based therapy for number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, satisfaction with bowel function, and balloon expulsion time in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, and for dyssynergia in the per-protocol analysis. No adverse events were reported. The median cost of home-based biofeedback therapy was significantly lower than that for office-based treatment (US$1081·70, IQR 794·90-1399·30 vs $1942·50, 1621·70-2369·00, p=0·009). INTERPRETATION: Home-based and office-based biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation improved bowel symptoms and physiology with similar efficacy. A home-based programme could substantially broaden the availability and use of this treatment. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Factors Associated With Response to Biofeedback Therapy for Dyssynergic Defecation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biofeedback therapy is effective for dyssynergic defecation (DD), but it is not widely available or reimbursed, and is labor intensive. It is therefore important to select the appropriate patients for this treatment. We investigated symptoms and demographic, manometric, and other factors associated with outcomes of biofeedback therapy in patients with DD. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 2 prospective studies of biofeedback therapy in 127 adult outpatients (18-75 years old, 120 female) with chronic constipation who failed to respond to treatment with dietary fiber or laxatives (>1 year) and were diagnosed with DD based on standard criteria. In each study, patients received 1-hour, biweekly office biofeedback therapy (6 sessions) or home biofeedback therapy with a device. A therapist used visual feedback, postural, and diaphragmatic breathing techniques to teach subjects to improve defecation. Treatment success was defined by a composite of normalization of dyssynergia pattern and increase of 20 mm in baseline bowel satisfaction score. Factors were compared between the treatment success and failure groups. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 127 patients enrolled, 77 (61%) had treatment success. Dyssynergia was corrected in 78% of patients and bowel satisfaction improved in 64% of patients. Baseline demographic features, constipation symptoms, manometric and sensory parameters, balloon expulsion time, and colonic transit results were similar between treatment failure and success groups. Patients with lower baseline bowel satisfaction score (P = .008) and patients who used digital maneuvers (P = .04) were more likely to have successful biofeedback therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback therapy is successful in more than 60% of patients with DD. Patients who used digital maneuvers and patients with lower baseline levels of bowel satisfaction were more likely to have treatment success, whereas other factors were not associated with success. Biofeedback therapy should be offered to all patients with DD, irrespective of baseline symptoms or anorectal physiology findings.

Diagnosis and management of chronic constipation in adults.

Constipation is a heterogeneous, polysymptomatic, multifactorial disease. Acute or transient constipation can be due to changes in diet, travel or stress, and secondary constipation can result from drug treatment, neurological or metabolic conditions or, rarely, colon cancer. A diagnosis of primary chronic constipation is made after exclusion of secondary causes of constipation and encompasses several overlapping subtypes. Slow-transit constipation is characterized by prolonged colonic transit in the absence of pelvic floor dysfunction. This subtype of constipation can be identified using either the radio-opaque marker test or wireless motility capsule test, and is best treated with laxatives such as polyethylene glycol or newer agents such as linaclotide or lubiprostone. If unsuccessful, subspecialist referral should be considered. Dyssynergic defecation results from impaired coordination of rectoanal and pelvic floor muscles, and causes difficulty with defecation. The condition can be identified using anorectal manometry and balloon expulsion tests and is best managed with biofeedback therapy. Opioid-induced constipation is an emerging entity, and several drugs including naloxegol, methylnaltrexone and lubiprostone are approved for its treatment. In this Review, we provide an overview of the burden and pathophysiology of chronic constipation, as well as a detailed discussion of the available diagnostic tools and treatment options.

Treatment of fecal incontinence: state of the science summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases workshop.

This is the second of a two-part summary of a National Institutes of Health conference on fecal incontinence (FI) that summarizes current treatments and identifies research priorities. Conservative medical management consisting of patient education, fiber supplements or antidiarrheals, behavioral techniques such as scheduled toileting, and pelvic floor exercises restores continence in up to 25% of patients. Biofeedback, often recommended as first-line treatment after conservative management fails, produces satisfaction with treatment in up to 76% and continence in 55%; however, outcomes depend on the skill of the therapist, and some trials are less favorable. Electrical stimulation of the anal mucosa is ineffective, but continuous electrical pulsing of sacral nerves produces a ≥50% reduction in FI frequency in a median 73% of patients. Tibial nerve electrical stimulation with needle electrodes is promising but remains unproven. Sphincteroplasty produces short-term clinical improvement in a median 67%, but 5-year outcomes are poor. Injecting an inert bulking agent around the anal canal led to ≥50% reductions of FI in up to 53% of patients. Colostomy is used as a last resort because of adverse effects on quality of life. Several new devices are under investigation but not yet approved. FI researchers identify the following priorities for future research: (1) trials comparing the effectiveness, safety, and cost of current therapies; (2) studies addressing barriers to consulting for care; and (3) translational research on regenerative medicine. Unmet patient needs include FI in special populations (e.g., neurological disorders and nursing home residents) and improvements in behavioral treatments.

An update on anorectal disorders for gastroenterologists.

Gastroenterologists frequently encounter pelvic floor disorders, which affect 10% to 15% of the population. The anorectum is a complex organ that collaborates with the pelvic floor muscles to preserve fecal continence and enable defecation. A careful clinical assessment is critical for the diagnosis and management of defecatory disorders and fecal incontinence. Newer diagnostic tools (eg, high-resolution manometry and magnetic resonance defecography) provide a refined understanding of anorectal dysfunctions and identify phenotypes in defecatory disorders and fecal incontinence. Conservative approaches, including biofeedback therapy, are the mainstay for managing these disorders; new minimally invasive approaches may benefit a subset of patients with fecal incontinence, but more controlled studies are needed. This mini-review highlights advances, current concepts, and controversies in the area.

Biofeedback therapy for constipation in adults.

Dyssynergic defecation is common and affects up to one half of patients with chronic constipation. This acquired behavioural problem is due to the inability to coordinate the abdominal and pelvic floor muscles to evacuate stools. Today, it is possible to diagnose this problem and treat this effectively with biofeedback therapy, history, prospective stool diaries, and anorectal physiological tests. Several randomised controlled trails have demonstrated that biofeedback therapy using neuromuscular training and visual and verbal feedback is not only efficacious but superior to other modalities such as laxative or sham training. Also the symptom improvement is due a change in the underlying pathophysiology. Development of user friendly approaches to biofeedback therapy and use of home biofeedback programs will significantly enhance the adoption of this treatment by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the future. Improved reimbursement for this proven and relatively inexpensive treatment will carry a significant impact on the problem.

Long-term efficacy of biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Although biofeedback therapy is effective in the short-term management of dyssynergic defecation, its long-term efficacy is unknown. Our aim was to compare the 1-year outcome of biofeedback (manometric-assisted pelvic relaxation and simulated defecation training) with standard therapy (diet, exercise, laxatives) in patients who completed 3 months of either therapy. METHODS: Stool diaries, visual analog scales (VASs), colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion time were assessed at baseline, and at 1 year after each treatment. All subjects were seen at 3-month intervals and received reinforcement. Primary outcome measure (intention-to-treat analysis) was a change in the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week. Secondary outcome measures included bowel symptoms, changes in dyssynergia, and anorectal function. RESULTS: Of 44 eligible patients with dyssynergic defecation, 26 agreed to participate in the long-term study. All 13 subjects who received biofeedback, and 7 of 13 who received standard therapy, completed 1 year; 6 failed standard therapy. The number of CSBMs per week increased significantly (P<0.001) in the biofeedback group but not in the standard group. Dyssynergia pattern normalized (P<0.001), balloon expulsion time improved (P=0.0009), defecation index increased (P<0.001), and colonic transit time normalized (P=0.01) only in the biofeedback group. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback therapy provided sustained improvement of bowel symptoms and anorectal function in constipated subjects with dyssynergic defecation, whereas standard therapy was largely ineffective.

Dyssynergic defecation and biofeedback therapy.

Constipation caused by dyssynergic defecation is common and affects up to one half of patients with this disorder. It is possible to diagnose this problem through history, prospective stool diaries, and anorectal physiologic tests. Randomized controlled trials have now established that biofeedback therapy is not only efficacious but superior to other modalities and that the symptom improvement is caused by a change in underlying pathophysiology. Development of user friendly approaches to biofeedback therapy and use of home biofeedback programs will significantly enhance the adoption of this treatment by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons.

Cholestyramine--a useful adjunct for the treatment of patients with fecal incontinence.

AIM/BACKGROUND: Cholestyramine may improve fecal incontinence, but its use has not been assessed. We report our experience with the use of cholestyramine in the treatment of fecal incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients (19 female, mean age 65 years) with fecal incontinence (>/=1 episode/week) received cholestyramine along with biofeedback therapy (group A). Stool frequency, stool consistency (Bristol scale), number of incontinent episodes, satisfaction with bowel function (VAS), and anorectal physiology were assessed at 3 months and at 1 year after treatment. Data were compared with a matched group of 21 incontinent subjects (19 female, mean age 64 years) who received biofeedback alone (group B). RESULTS: At 3 months and at 1 year, group A patients showed decreased stool frequency (p < 0.01), stool consistency (p = 0.001), and number of incontinent episodes (p < 0.04). In contrast, stool frequency (p = 0.8) and stool consistency (0.23) were not different from baseline in group B subjects. In both groups, there was improvement in the satisfaction with bowel function (p < 0.05), anal sphincter pressures (p < 0.05) and ability to retain saline infusion (p < 0.05). Mean dose of cholestyramine used was 3.6 g; 13 subjects (62%) required dose titration, and 7 (33%) subjects reported minor side effects. CONCLUSION: Cholestyramine is safe and useful adjunct for the treatment of diarrhea and fecal incontinence. Most patients require small doses, and dose titration is important. The improvement in stool characteristics favors a drug effect, over and above the benefits of biofeedback therapy.