Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2025-03.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Are There Anorectal Physiologic Factors Prior to Biofeedback Treatment for Constipation that Affect Compliance Rate?.
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Korean Soc Coloproctol > Volume 22(3); 2006 > Article
Original Article
Are There Anorectal Physiologic Factors Prior to Biofeedback Treatment for Constipation that Affect Compliance Rate?.
Shin, Dong Ho , Kim, Seung Cheol , Kim, In Kyoung , Hong, Hyun Ki , Joo, Jae Sik
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 2006;22(3):162-168

Kangdong Seoul Colorectal Surgery, Seoul, Korea. joorect@unitel.co.kr
prev next
  • 999 Views
  • 6 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE
The most important factor for the success of biofeedback treatment of constipation is patients' enthusiastic participation and willingness to comply with the treatment protocol. The purpose of this study was to analyze differences among groups of patients classified according to the number of biofeedback sessions and to identify any anorectal physiological and clinical factors related with better compliance with biofeedback treatment.
METHODS
From Aug. 2001 to July 2003, 80 patients who had undergone biofeedback treatment for constipation by a single therapist were classified into three groups according to the number of sessions: only one session (Group I, n=26), two or three sessions (Group II, n=27), and more than four sessions (Group III, n=27). We reviewed the clinical and the anorectal physiological characteristics retrospectively.
RESULTS
The mean age was 39.1 (range, 8~77) years, and the mean duration of constipation was 7.7 (range, 0.5~30) years and mean frequency of defecation was 2.2 times/week. Patients' pretreatment use of laxatives was significantly lower in Group I (38.5 percent) than in Group II (70.4 percent) or Group III (51.9 percent) (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in anal manometric parameters (mean and maximal resting pressure, maximal squeezing pressure, sensitivity, and rectal capacity). In the cinedefecographic findings, the megarectum was significantly higher in Group III (58.3 percent) than in Group I (38.9 percent) or Group II (27.8 percent) (P=0.02), but other findings of anismus, rectocele, intussusception, and delayed emptying showed no significant differences. The cinedefecographic parameters (anorectal angle, perineal descent, anal canal length, and puborectalis length), were not significantiy different among the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
We strongly recommend biofeedback treatment for constipation patients who abuse laxatives and/or for whom cinedefecography reveals megarectum.

Related articles
Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
© Korean Society of Coloproctology.
TOP