Biofeedback for fecal incontinence: a randomized study comparing exercise regimens. A prospective, randomized study comparing the effect of augmented biofeedback with sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence after obstetric trauma. Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback for fecal incontinence. A prospective randomized trial comparing four biofeedback techniques for patients with faecal incontinence. A components analysis of biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Biofeedback vs. electrostimulation in the treatment of postdelivery anal incontinence: a randomized, clinical trial. Randomized, controlled trial of biofeedback with anal manometry, transanal ultrasound, or pelvic floor retraining with digital guidance alone in the treatment of mild to moderate fecal incontinence. Randomized clinical trial of intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback physiotherapy with intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback augmented with electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter in the early treatment of postpartum fecal incontinence. The effects of low-frequency endo-anal electrical stimulation on faecal incontinence: a prospective study. Sacral nerve stimulation is more effective than optimal medical therapy for severe fecal incontinence: a randomized, controlled study. Investigation of mode of action of biofeedback in treatment of fecal incontinence. Biofeedback treatment of fecal incontinence in geriatric patients. A randomized-controlled trial comparing an educational intervention alone vs education and biofeedback in the management of faecal incontinence in women. Randomized controlled trial shows biofeedback to be superior to pelvic floor exercises for fecal incontinence. Adjuvant biofeedback following anal sphincter repair: a randomized study. Triple target treatment (3T) is more effective than biofeedback alone for anal incontinence: the 3T-AI study. Triple-target treatment versus low-frequency electrostimulation for anal incontinence: a randomized, controlled trial.
Fecal incontinence affects up to 11% of Australian community-dwelling adults and 72% of nursing home residents. Biofeedback is a recommended conservative therapy when medication and pelvic floor exercises have failed to improve patient outcomes.
                This study aimed to investigate the impact of a new exercise regimen on the severity of fecal incontinence and the quality of life of participants.
                This was a randomized clinical study.
                This study was conducted at the Anorectal Physiology Clinic, Townsville Hospital, Queensland, Australia.
                Seventy-two participants (19 male), with a mean age of 62.1 years, attended 5 clinic sessions: 4 weekly sessions followed by 4 weeks of home practice and a follow-up assessment session. A postal survey was conducted 2 years later.
                Thirty-seven patients (12 male) were randomly assigned to the standard clinical protocol (sustained submaximal anal and pelvic floor exercises) and 35 patients (7 male) were randomly assigned to the alternative group (rapid squeeze plus sustained submaximal exercises).
                The main outcomes were measured by use of the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence score and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale survey tool.
                No significant differences were found between the 2 exercise groups at the beginning or at the end of the study or as a result of treatment in objective, quality-of-life, or fecal incontinence severity measures. Sixty-nine participants completed treatment. The severity of fecal incontinence decreased significantly (11.5/20 to 5.0/20, P < .001). Eighty-six percent (59/69) of participants reported improved continence. Quality of life significantly improved for all participants (P < .001). Results were sustained 2 years later. Patients who practiced at least the prescribed number of exercises had better outcomes than those who practiced fewer exercises.
                This study was limited because it involved a heterogeneous sample, it was based on subjective reporting of exercise performance, and loss to follow-up occurred because of the highly mobile population.
                Patients attending this biofeedback program attained significant improvement in the severity of their fecal incontinence and in their quality of life. Although introduction of rapid muscle squeezes had little impact on fecal incontinence severity or patient quality of life, patient exercise compliance at prescribed or greater levels did. This study was designed to compare prospectively the effects of augmented biofeedback with those of sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence and anorectal manometry after obstetric trauma.
                A consecutive cohort of 40 females with impaired fecal continence after obstetric anal sphincter injury were recruited from a dedicated perineal clinic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either augmented biofeedback or sensory biofeedback alone. All patients were assessed before and after twelve weeks of biofeedback training, using a fecal continence questionnaire and anorectal manometry.
                Thirty-nine of 40 females recruited completed the study. Continence scores improved in both treatment groups, but the results were better for those who received augmented biofeedback. Anorectal manometry was unchanged by sensory biofeedback, whereas anal resting and squeeze pressures increased with augmented biofeedback. No change in anal vector symmetry was observed in either group.
                Augmented biofeedback training is superior to sensory biofeedback alone in the treatment of impaired fecal continence after obstetric trauma. Behavioral treatment (biofeedback) has been reported to improve fecal incontinence but has not been compared with standard care.
                A total of 171 patients with fecal incontinence were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: (1) standard care (advice); (2) advice plus instruction on sphincter exercises; (3) hospital-based computer-assisted sphincter pressure biofeedback; and (4) hospital biofeedback plus the use of a home electromyelogram biofeedback device. Outcome measures included diary, symptom questionnaire, continence score, patient's rating of change, quality of life (short-form 36 and disease specific), psychologic status (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and anal manometry.
                Biofeedback yielded no greater benefit than standard care with advice (53% improved in group 3 vs. 54% in group 1). There was no difference between the groups on any of the following measures: episodes of incontinence decreased from a median of 2 to 0 per week (P < 0.001). Continence score (worst = 20) decreased from a median of 11 to 8 (P < 0.001). Disease-specific quality of life, short-form 36 (vitality, social functioning, and mental health), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale all significantly improved. Patients improved resting, squeeze, and sustained squeeze pressures (all P < 0.002). These improvements were largely maintained 1 year after finishing treatment.
                Conservative therapy for fecal incontinence improves continence, quality of life, psychologic well-being, and anal sphincter function. Benefit is maintained in the medium term. Neither pelvic floor exercises nor biofeedback was superior to standard care supplemented by advice and education. The aim of this study was to compare four methods of biofeedback therapy for patients with faecal incontinence (FI).
                All patients with FI who were ineligible for surgical management were prospectively randomized using a computer generated randomization method into one of four protocols: 1, out-patient intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback training (EMG); 2, EMG plus intrarectal balloon training (BT); 3, EMG plus a home trainer (HT); and 4, EMG, BT and HT. All patients received weekly, 1 h, out-patient biofeedback training. Success for patients with FI was measured by a reduction in incontinent episodes (days/week). In all instances, patients maintained a daily log in which documentation was recorded regarding each bowel evacuation.
                Forty patients were randomized into one of the four groups. Six patients withdrew after one session and were not included in the analysis. Therefore, 34 patients (23 female and 11 male) with a mean incontinence score of 12 (range 7-14) were randomized to one of the four groups (n=8, 8, 8, and 10, respectively). There was a statistically significant reduction in incontinent episodes for all groups. However, there were no significant differences in treatment outcome found in comparisons among the four groups.
                Biofeedback therapy significantly improves FI. Moreover, EMG training was as effective alone as was the addition of HT, BT or both for the treatment of FI. Fecal incontinence is a socially disabling symptom for which rectosphincteric biofeedback has been reported to be dramatically effective. The most commonly employed biofeedback procedure incorporates three separate and potentially effective components: exercise of the external sphincter muscle, training in discrimination of rectal sensations, and training synchrony of the internal and external sphincter responses. This paper reports the results of single case experiments employed with eight incontinent patients to examine the contributions of each of these components. All eight patients improved, but only one required the biofeedback procedure as it was originally described. Three responded to sensory discrimination training, one to exercise training, and one to the training of synchronous sphincteric responses; three recovered independently of the effects of biofeedback. Despite the achievement of continence, the rectosphincteric reflexes following treatment continued to be abnormal in every case. These findings suggest that the character of the external sphincter response to rectal distension is an unreliable index of sphincter function and that exercise and sensory discrimination training procedures are effective for some cases of fecal incontinence. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of biofeedback and electrostimulation in a randomized, clinical trial for the treatment of patients with postdelivery anal incontinence.
                Forty-nine females who sustained third-degree or fourth-degree perineal rupture with a mean age of 36 (range, 22-44) years were included in the study. The females were randomized to biofeedback or electrostimulation treatment. Forty females completed the study: 19 in the biofeedback and 21 in the electrostimulation group. Biofeedback or electrostimulation sessions were performed two times daily for eight weeks in each group. Wexner incontinence score, fecal incontinence quality of life scores, and reduced quality of life on visual analog scale were registered before and after treatment. Patients' self-rating of treatment effect also was registered in both groups. The primary outcome measure was the Wexner incontinence score.
                There were no differences in treatment effect between groups. Comparing pretreatment status to posttreatment in each group showed no improvement in Wexner score, reduced quality of life, or any of the fecal incontinence quality of life scores. Patients' self-rating of the treatment effect, however, showed a subjective improvement of symptoms both in the biofeedback and in the electrostimulation group (median, 7 vs. 5.)
                This study shows that there was no difference in effect between biofeedback and electrostimulation. Neither biofeedback nor electrostimulation treatments improved Wexner incontinence score, reduced quality of life, or fecal incontinence quality of life scores. Both treatments resulted in improvement of patients' subjective perception of incontinence control. A prospective, three-armed, randomized, controlled trial was performed to assess whether pelvic floor exercises with biofeedback using anal manometry or transanal ultrasound are superior to pelvic floor exercises with feedback from digital examination alone in terms of continence, quality of life, physiologic sphincter strength, and compliance. Its secondary objectives were to assess whether there are any differences in these outcomes between biofeedback with transanal ultrasound vs. anal manometry and to correlate the physiologic measures with clinical outcome.
                One hundred twenty patients with mild to moderate fecal incontinence were randomized into one of three treatment groups: biofeedback with anal manometry, biofeedback with transanal ultrasound, or pelvic floor exercises with feedback from digital examination alone. Commencing one week after an initial 45-minute assessment session, patients attended monthly treatments for a total of five sessions. Each session lasted 30 minutes and involved sphincter exercises with biofeedback that involved instrumentation or digital examination alone, and patients were encouraged to perform identical exercises twice per day between outpatient visits.
                One hundred two patients (85 percent) completed the four-month treatment program. Across all treatment allocations, patients experienced modest but highly significant improvements in all nine outcome measures during treatment, with 70 percent of all patients perceiving improvement in symptom severity and 69 percent of patients reporting improved quality of life. With the possible exception of isotonic fatigue time, there were no significant differences between the three treatment groups in compliance, physiologic sphincter strength, and clinical or quality-of-life measures. Correlations between physiologic measures and clinical outcomes were much stronger with ultrasound-based measures than with manometry.
                Although patients in this study who completed pelvic floor exercises with feedback from digital examination achieved no additional benefit from biofeedback and measurement with transanal ultrasound or manometry, it may be that the guidance received through digital examination alone offered patients in the pelvic floor exercise group an effective biofeedback mechanism. Contrary to our hypothesis, the use of transanal ultrasound offered no benefit over manometry, but the use of ultrasound for isotonic fatigue time and isometric fatigue contractions provided potentially important physiologic measures that require further study. This study has confirmed, through a large sample of patients, that pelvic floor retraining programs are an effective treatment for improving physiologic, clinical, and quality-of-life parameters in the short term. The purpose of this study was to compare intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback alone with intra-anal biofeedback that was augmented with electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter in the treatment of postpartum fecal incontinence. A secondary aim was to examine the impact of the treatment on continence-related quality of life.
                Sixty symptomatic women were assigned randomly to receive intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback or electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter once weekly for 12 weeks and to perform daily pelvic floor exercises between treatments. Therapeutic response was evaluated with a symptom questionnaire to determine continence score, anal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound scanning. Quality of life was assessed before and after treatment with a validated questionnaire.
                Fifty-four women completed the treatment; 52 women (96%) had ultrasonic evidence of an external anal sphincter defect. After the treatment, both groups demonstrated significant improvement in continence score (P < .001) and in squeeze anal pressures (P < .04). Resting anal pressures did not alter significantly. Quality of life improved after the completion of physiotherapy, but there were no differences in outcome between intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback and electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter.
                Intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback therapy was associated with improved continence and quality of life in women with altered fecal continence after delivery. The addition of electrical stimulation of the anal sphincter did not enhance symptomatic outcome. Faecal incontinence is a distressing problem that is often not amenable to surgical correction. Chronic low-frequency electrical stimulation of damaged axons is thought to reduce synaptic resistance, increase the size of motor units by axonal sprouting and increase the rate of conduction of the pudendal nerve. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the effect of chronic low-frequency endo-anal electrical stimulation on faecal incontinence using a home-based unit and hospital-supervised therapy.
                Forty-eight patients with faecal incontinence completed a prospective randomised trial. Patients were allocated randomly to one of two groups; group 1 was exposed to endo-anal pudendal nerve stimulation daily at home with a portable home unit, group 2 attended the physiotherapy department for endo-anal electrical stimulation under supervision.
                Continence scores improved significantly after treatment in both groups (p<0.001). Both groups showed improved manometric scores, although only group 1 showed significant improvement in both resting and squeeze pressures (mean total resting pressure 184-224 mmHg, p<0.001; mean total squeeze pressure 253-337 mmHg, p<0.001). This was also reflected by an improvement in quality of life in both groups.
                Low-frequency endo-anal electrical stimulation significantly improves continence scores and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence not amenable to surgical correction. It leads to improved manometric values when carried out on a daily basis with a portable home unit. This randomized study was designed to compare the effect of sacral neuromodulation with optimal medical therapy in patients with severe fecal incontinence.
                Patients (aged 39-86 years) with severe fecal incontinence were randomized to have sacral nerve stimulation (SNS group; n = 60) or best supportive therapy (control; n = 60), which consisted of pelvic floor exercises, bulking agent, and dietary manipulation. Full assessment included endoanal ultrasound, anorectal physiology, two-week bowel diary, and fecal incontinence quality of life index. The follow-up duration was 12 months.
                The sacral nerve stimulation group was similar to the control group with regard to gender (F:M = 11:1 vs. 14:1) and age (mean, 63.9 vs. 63 years). The incidence of a defect of < or = 120 degrees of the external anal sphincter and pudendal neuropathy was similar between the groups. Trial screening improved incontinent episodes by more than 50 percent in 54 patients (90 percent). Full-stage sacral nerve stimulation was performed in 53 of these 54 "successful" patients. There were no septic complications. With sacral nerve stimulation, mean incontinent episodes per week decreased from 9.5 to 3.1 (P < 0.0001) and mean incontinent days per week from 3.3 to 1 (P < 0.0001). Perfect continence was accomplished in 25 patients (47.2 percent). In the sacral nerve stimulation group, there was a significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in fecal incontinence quality of life index in all four domains. By contrast, there was no significant improvement in fecal continence and the fecal incontinence quality of life scores in the control group.
                Sacral neuromodulation significantly improved the outcome in patients with severe fecal incontinence compared with the control group undergoing optimal medical therapy. A study was carried out in 25 incontinent patients to evaluate some of the factors thought to be responsible for the success of retraining for fecal incontinence. Subjects were initially allocated to one of two groups; one group was trained to perceive small rectal volumes (active retraining), the other group carried out the same maneuvers but were not given any information or instruction. Active sensory retraining reduced the sensory threshold from 32 +/- 8 to 7 +/- 2 ml (P less than 0.001), corrected any sensory delay that was present (P less than 0.004), and reduced the frequency of incontinence from 5 +/- 1 to 1 +/- 1 episodes per week (P less than 0.01). Sham retraining caused a modest reduction in the sensory threshold (from 29 +/- 9 to 20 +/- 8; P less than 0.05) but did not significantly reduce the frequency of incontinence. Subsequent strength and coordination training did not significantly improve continence, although at the end of the study, 50% of patients had no incontinent episodes at all and 76% of patients had reduced the frequency of incontinence episodes by more than 75%. This improvement in continence was not associated with any change in sphincter pressures or in the continence to rectally infused saline but was associated with significant improvements in rectal sensation. The functional improvement was sustained over a period of two years in 16 of the 22 patients available for follow-up. In conclusion, the results support the use of retraining in the management of fecal incontinence and suggest that retraining may work by enhancing rectal sensitivity and instilling confidence. Eighteen fecally incontinent geriatric patients were first treated for constipation as a possible cause of incontinence, and the 13 who remained incontinent were provided sphincter biofeedback training. Half the patients were instructed to perform 50 sphincter exercises per day for a four-week period prior to the start of biofeedback training to determine whether such exercises would improve bowel control in the absence of biofeedback training. Sphincter exercises alone did not produce clinical improvements and did not significantly increase the strength of sphincter contractions. Biofeedback training did significantly augment sphincter strength and was associated with greater than 75 per cent decreases in incontinence for 10 (77 per cent) of the patients. Improvements were maintained in 60 per cent at six months and in 42 per cent at one year. Thus biofeedback training appears to be of specific value in the treatment of fecal incontinence in geriatric patients. Biofeedback (BF) training is an accepted therapy in the treatment of faecal incontinence (FI) despite a paucity of data demonstrating benefit. This study aims to determine whether BF has any specific effect above and beyond an educational intervention. Twenty-three women with regular and frequent idiopathic FI were randomized to education and pelvic exercise vs education and BF therapy. Complete data is available for 18 women. Overall, 61% of participants demonstrated a complete response. There was no difference in response rate between treatment arms. Women with FI demonstrate a good response to treatment with education and exercise and education plus BF thus questioning the specific effect of BF. This study aimed to compare manometric biofeedback with pelvic floor exercises for the treatment of fecal incontinence in a randomized controlled trial controlling for nonspecific treatment effects.
                After excluding patients who were adequately treated with medication, education, and behavioral strategies (21%), 108 patients (83 females; average age, 59.6 years) underwent either pelvic floor exercises alone (n = 63) or manometric biofeedback plus pelvic floor exercises (n = 45). Patients in both groups were taught behavioral strategies to avoid incontinence.
                At three-month follow-up, biofeedback patients had significantly greater reductions on the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (P = 0.01) and fewer days with fecal incontinence (P = 0.083). Biofeedback training increased anal canal squeeze pressure more than pelvic floor exercises did (P = 0.014) and with less abdominal tension during squeeze (P = 0.001). Three months after training 76% of patients treated with biofeedback vs. 41% patients treated with pelvic floor exercises (chi-squared = 12.5, P < 0.001) reported adequate relief. Before treatment, the groups did not differ on demographic, physiologic, or psychologic variables, symptom severity, duration of illness, quality-of-life impact, or expectation of benefit. At 12-month follow-up, biofeedback patients continued to show significantly greater reduction in Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores (F = 4.83, P = 0.03), and more patients continued to report adequate relief (chi-squared = 3.64, P = 0.056).
                This investigation provides definitive support for the efficacy of biofeedback. Biofeedback training resulted in greater reductions in fecal incontinence severity and days with fecal incontinence. Biofeedback was also more effective than pelvic floor exercises alone in producing adequate relief of fecal incontinence symptoms in patients for whom conservative medical management had failed. To evaluate the impact of adjuvant biofeedback following sphincter surgery.
                Thirty-eight patients were randomized into sphincter repair or sphincter repair plus biofeedback groups. Outcome measures included a symptom questionnaire, patient's rating of satisfaction with continence function and improvement, change in continence score, quality of life and anorectal physiology. Endoanal ultrasonography was also performed pre- and post-operatively.
                Immediately following surgery, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the functional or physiological variables between the groups. Continence and patient satisfaction scores improved with a mean difference of -0.48 (95% CI: -3.30-2.33, P = 0.73) and 1.03 (95% CI: -1.40-3.46, P = 0.39), respectively. Only the difference in embarrassment scores reached statistical significance (mean) 0.56 (95% CI: 0.12-0.99, P = 0.014). Resting and squeeze pressures also improved. Thirteen of 14 in the biofeedback and 11 of 17 (control) reported symptomatic improvement. In the biofeedback group, although not statistically significant continence and satisfaction scores improved and were sustained over time. In the control group, continence and satisfaction scores changed little between 3 and 12 months (P = NS). Quality of life measures improved within the biofeedback group but there was no statistical difference between the groups.
                Following surgery continence function improves in all patients but adjuvant biofeedback therapy improves quality of life and maintains symptomatic improvement over time.
                Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd The efficacy of EMG-biofeedback and low-frequency electrical stimulation for the treatment of anal incontinence has not been proven. Our purpose was to evaluate a novel therapeutic concept, termed triple target treatment, which combines amplitude-modulated medium-frequency stimulation and EMG-biofeedback.
                Patients with anal incontinence were randomly assigned to the triple target regimen or EMG-biofeedback alone for a 9-month treatment period in a multicenter randomized clinical trial with blinded observers (ClincialTrials.gov registration number NCT00525291). Primary end points were changes in the Cleveland Clinic score and the adapted St. Mark's (Vaizey) score at 9 months compared with baseline. Secondary end points included therapy acceptance and proportion of patients achieving continence or improvement in grade or frequency of incontinence.
                We enrolled 158 patients with anal incontinence. The median decrease in the Cleveland Clinic score from baseline to 9 months was 3 points greater for the triple target regimen than for EMG-biofeedback (95% CI, 1-4; P = .0024). The improvement was 8 points for the triple target regimen (95% CI, 7-9) and 5 points for EMG-biofeedback (95% CI, 4-7). Results were similar for the Vaizey score. Of patients treated for at least 3 months, continence was achieved by 50% of patients with the triple target regimen and 25.8% of those with EMG-biofeedback.
                The combination of amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrostimulation with EMG-biofeedback in the triple target regimen is superior to EMG-biofeedback alone in the treatment of anal incontinence. Therapy programs for fecal incontinence are most effective if patients participate for longer than 2 to 3 months. In the nonsurgical treatment of anal incontinence, the combination of amplitude-modulated medium-frequency stimulation and electromyographic biofeedback (EMG-BF), known as triple-target treatment (3T), is superior to EMG-BF alone. The aim of this trial is to compare 3T with the standard treatment, low-frequency stimulation (LFS).
                80 patients with anal incontinence of Grade I or higher who presented to physicians or centers specialized in coloproctology were enrolled in this multicenter randomized trial with blinded observer. The trial had an open parallel-group design. Randomization was performed centrally by telephone. The primary endpoint was the Cleveland Clinic Score (CCS) after self-training at home with either 3T or LFS in two 20-minute sessions per day for 6 months. The secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients regaining continence, and the patients' quality of life (QoL). On completion of the trial as planned, the results were evaluated with an intention-to-treat analysis. Study registration: DRKS00000138 (http://register.germanctr.de).
                39 patients were randomized to 3T, and 41 to LFS. After 6 months of treatment, the CCS (mean ± standard deviation) was 3.1 ± 4.2 in the 3T group and 9.6 ± 3.9 in the LFS group. The median improvement in the CCS at 6 months compared to baseline was 7 points greater in the 3T group than in the LFS group (95% CI: 5-9, p<0.001). Anal continence was regained by 54% of the 3T patients, but none of the LFS patients (95% CI for the difference: 37.18% - 69.91%, p<0.001). QoL scores were higher in all dimensions in the 3T group than in the LFS group. No major adverse effects occurred in either group.
                3T is superior to LFS in the treatment of anal incontinence. The available evidence suggests that the success of 3T is based on the combined effect of biofeedback and medium-frequency stimulation. LFS of the type applied in this trial has no effect. 3T should be used in routine clinical practice instead of LFS.
The limited number of identified trials together with methodological weaknesses of many do not allow a definitive assessment of the role of anal sphincter exercises and biofeedback therapy in the management of people with faecal incontinence. We found some evidence that biofeedback and electrical stimulation may enhance the outcome of treatment compared to electrical stimulation alone or exercises alone. Exercises appear to be less effective than an implanted sacral nerve stimulator. While there is a suggestion that some elements of biofeedback therapy and sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, this is not certain. Larger well-designed trials are needed to enable safe conclusions.