Habit training versus habit training with direct visual biofeedback in adults with chronic constipation: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim was to determine whether specialist-led habit training using Habit Training with Biofeedback (HTBF) is more effective than specialist-led habit training alone (HT) for chronic constipation and whether outcomes of interventions are improved by stratification to HTBF or HT based on diagnosis (functional defaecation disorder vs. no functional defaecation disorder) by radio-physiological investigations (INVEST). METHOD: This was a parallel three-arm randomized single-blinded controlled trial, permitting two randomized comparisons: HTBF versus HT alone; INVEST- versus no-INVEST-guided intervention. The inclusion criteria were age 18-70 years; attending specialist hospitals in England; self-reported constipation for >6 months; refractory to basic treatment. The main exclusions were secondary constipation and previous experience of the trial interventions. The primary outcome was the mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at 6 months on intention to treat. The secondary outcomes were validated disease-specific and psychological questionnaires and cost-effectiveness (based on EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: In all, 182 patients were randomized 3:3:2 (target 384): HT n = 68; HTBF n = 68; INVEST-guided treatment n = 46. All interventions had similar reductions (improvement) in the primary outcome at 6 months (approximately -0.8 points of a 4-point scale) with no statistically significant difference between HT and HTBF (-0.03 points; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.27; P = 0.85) or INVEST versus no-INVEST (0.22; -0.11 to 0.55; P = 0.19). Secondary outcomes showed a benefit for all interventions with no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of HTBF or INVEST compared with HT. CONCLUSION: The results of the study at 6 months were inconclusive. However, with the caveat of under-recruitment and further attrition at 6 months, a simple, cheaper approach to intervention may be as clinically effective and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches.

Improved fistula plug outcome depends on the type of plug: a single-centre retrospective study.

AIM: Fistula-in-ano is a common condition that is potentially difficult to treat. In recent years 'sphincter-sparing' procedures have increased in popularity due to the lower rates of reported complications, such as incontinence. One such treatment is the fistula plug, which has seen varied success compared with other techniques. There are currently several plugs on the market and it is possible that difference in outcomes could be linked to the type of plug used. The aim of this study was to compare healing and complication rates between two fistula plugs in a single tertiary referral centre in the UK. METHOD: We conducted a single-centre retrospective analysis of all patients over the age of 18 years who underwent elective fistula plug insertion, with two different fistula plugs over a 13-year period. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients underwent fistula plug insertion (plug A n = 90; plug B n = 23). Plug B had been on the market for the final 4 years of the study period, hence the differing patient numbers. There was no difference in patient demographics, fistula type or aetiology of the fistula between the two plugs. Plug B had a significantly higher fistula healing rate compared with plug A (56.5% vs. 12.2%; p < 0.005). A quarter of all patients experienced a complication, 93% being those who had fistula plug A inserted. The most common complication was extrusion of the plug within 72 h of insertion. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated significantly different outcomes according to the type of fistula plug used. Whilst current randomized controlled trials have not found a significant difference in healing rates when comparing one type of fistula plug to other treatment modalities, this study suggests that plug type may influence efficacy.

Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity associated with closure of loop ileostomy (LI) may be attributed to the various surgical techniques employed for the closure. The purpose of this review was to review the hand-sutured (HS) versus the stapled anastomosis (SA) techniques, used in the reversal of LI. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane library and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control trials (CCTs), evaluating HS and SA in reversal of LI. Data extraction with risk of bias assessment was followed by subgroup and pooled data meta-analysis where applicable per outcome. RESULTS: Four RCTs (HS: 321, SA: 328) and 10 CCTs (HS: 2808, SA: 1044) were identified, with a total of 4508 patients. Regardless of subgroup analysis, no difference was seen between the two techniques with regard to anastomotic leaks (P = 0.24, odds ratio (OR): 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-2.29) or re-operation. The stapled group showed a significantly lower rate of conservatively managed small bowel obstruction (SBO)/ ileus at 30 days (P < 0.001, OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.59-2.96) (P < 0.001) and SBO during combined short- and long-term follow-up (P < 0.001). The SA also showed significant shorter operative time (P = 0.02; WMD 11.52 min), time to first bowel opening (P < 0.001; WMD 0.52 days) and length of hospital stay (P = 0.03; WMD 0.70 days). CONCLUSION: The stapled technique offers an advantage in terms of lower post-operative subacute SBO rates, a faster operative technique and shorter hospitalization times. These perceived benefits make it potentially superior to HS for the reversal of LI.