The effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on fecal incontinence and quality of life following colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Support Care Cancer
; 32(2): 103, 2024 Jan 13.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38217744
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
To investigate the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions compared to control conditions on fecal incontinence (FI) and quality of life (QoL) following colorectal surgery.METHODS:
Electronic searches in English-language (Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Ovid, and PEDro) and Chinese-language (CNKI, Wanfang Data) databases were conducted. Trials comparing physiotherapy interventions against control conditions and assessing FI and QoL outcomes were included in the review.RESULTS:
Ten trials were included. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant improvements in lifestyle (0.54; 95% CI 0.03, 1.05; p = 0.04), coping behavior (MD 1.136; 95% CI 0.24, 2.04; p = 0.01), and embarrassment (0.417; 95% CI 0.14, 0.70; p = 0.00) components of QoL among individuals receiving pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with those receiving usual care (UC). Meta-analysis showed biofeedback to be significantly more effective than UC in enhancing anal resting pressure (ARP; 9.551; 95% CI 2.60, 16.51; p = 0.007), maximum squeeze pressure (MSP; 25.29; 95% CI 4.08, 48.50; p = 0.02), and rectal resting pressure (RRP; 0.51; 95% CI 0.10, 0.9; p = 0.02). Meta-analysis also found PFMT combined with biofeedback to be significantly more effective than PFMT alone for ARP (3.00; 95% CI 0.40, 5.60; p = 0.02), MSP (9.35, 95% CI 0.17, 18.53; p = 0.05), and RRP (1.54; 95% CI 0.60, 2.47; p = 0.00).CONCLUSIONS:
PFMT combined with biofeedback was more effective than PFMT alone, but both interventions delivered alone were superior to UC. Future studies remain necessary to optimize and standardize the PFMT parameters for improving QoL among individuals who experience FI following CRC surgery. REVIEW REGISTRATION This systematic review is registered in the PROSPERO registry (Ref CRD42022337084).Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Etiology_studies
/
Systematic_reviews
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2024
Tipo de documento:
Article