Predictors of unsuccessful of treatment for fecal incontinence biofeedback for fecal incontinence in female
Background – Biofeedback is an effective method of treatment for fecal incontinence but there is controversy regarding factors that may be correlated with its effectiveness. Objective – To evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence, identifying the predictive factors...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.ufc.br:riufc/49958 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/49958 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Diafragma da Pelve Pelvic Floor Incontinência Fecal Fecal Incontinence Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica Electric Stimulation Therapy Resultado do Tratamento Treatment Outcome |
| Sumario: | Background – Biofeedback is an effective method of treatment for fecal incontinence but there is controversy regarding factors that may be correlated with its effectiveness. Objective – To evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence, identifying the predictive factors for unsuccessful treatment. Methods – Consecutive female patients who had fecal incontinence and were treated with a full course of biofeedback were screened. The symptoms were evaluated using Cleveland Clinic incontinence (CCF) score before and six months after the completion of therapy. Patients had a satisfactory clinical response to biofeedback if the CCF score had decreased by more than 50% at six months (GI) and an unsatisfactory response if the CCF score did not decrease or if the score decreased by <50% (GII). The groups were compared with regard to age, score, anal resting and squeeze pressures and sustained squeeze pressure by manometry, history of vaginal delivery, number of vaginal deliveries, menopause, hysterectomy, and previous anorectal surgery. Results – Of 124 women were included, 70 (56%) in GI and 54 (44%) in GII. The median CCF score decreased significantly from 10 to 5 (P=0.00). FI scores were higher in GII. Patients from GII had more previous vaginal deliveries and previous surgeries. The mean sustained squeeze pressure was higher in GI. Patients from GI and GII had similar ages, number of vaginal deliveries, menopause, hysterectomy, anal pressures, and sphincter defects. The median sustained squeeze pressure increased significantly before and after biofeedback in GI. Conclusion – Biofeedback therapy shows effective treatment with 50% reductions in FI score in half of patients. Factors associated with unsuccessful outcome include FI score ≥10, previous vaginal delivery, previous anorectal and/or colorectal surgery, and reduced mean sustained squeeze pressure. |
|---|