Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 377–383 | Cite as

Usefulness of psyllium in rehabilitation of obstructed defecation

  • F. Pucciani
  • M. Raggioli
  • M. N. Ringressi
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Rehabilitation is the first therapeutic step of obstructed defecation, after failure of conservative therapy with high-fiber diet and laxatives. This study evaluates the usefulness of psyllium, a bulk-forming agent, when used during rehabilitation of obstructed defecation.

Methods

Between January 2008 and December 2010, 45 patients affected by obstructed defecation were included in the study. Two randomized groups were selected. Group 1 (21 women; age range 25–67 (mean, 51.8) years) continued to consume a high-fiber diet (approximately 30 g fiber per day) during rehabilitation. Group 2 (24 women; age range 46–71 (mean, 59.8) years) consumed only psyllium (3.6 g × 2/day; Psyllogel® Fibra, Nathura, Montecchio Emilia, Italy) during the rehabilitative cycle. After a preliminary clinical evaluation, including the obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) score, patients underwent defecography and anorectal manometry as well as rehabilitative treatment according to the “multimodal rehabilitative program” for obstructive defecation. At the end of the program, patients were reassessed by clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry. Post-rehabilitative ODS scores were used for an arbitrary schedule of patients divided into three classes: Class I, good (score ≤ 4); Class II, fair (score > 4 to ≤ 8); Class III, poor (score > 8).

Results

The number of bowel movements per week did not increase significantly after rehabilitation. Both groups had a significantly better Bristol stool form scale score (Group 1: P < 0.034; Group 2: P < 0.02). The overall mean ODS score from Groups 1 and 2 showed significant improvement after treatment (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight patients (82.3%) were Class I (good results) without significant differences between groups. Nine women were symptom-free. Significant differences were found between pre-rehabilitative and post-rehabilitative manometric data from the straining test (P < 0.001) and duration of maximal voluntary contraction (Group 1: P < 0.004; Group 2: P < 0.02). A significant difference was found between the pre-rehabilitative and post-rehabilitative conscious rectal sensitivity threshold (CRST) in Group 2 women (P < 0.02). The Group 2 women who underwent volumetric rehabilitation (11 patients) had significantly lower post-rehabilitative CRST values than pre-rehabilitative values (P < 0.002); the length of volumetric rehabilitation was also significantly shorter in Group 2 patients (P < 0.04) than in Group 1 patients.

Conclusions

After rehabilitation of obstructed defecation, some patients became symptom-free and many had an improved ODS score. Psyllium is helpful for volumetric rehabilitation: patients who consumed psyllium had lower post-rehabilitative CRST values than subjects were on high-fiber diet.

Keywords

Obstructed defecation Rehabilitation Biofeedback Bulking laxatives Psyllium 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no actual or potential conflict of interest related to the publication of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Singh B (2007) Psyllium as therapeutic and drug delivery agent. Int J Pharm 334:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouchoucha M, Faye A, Savarieau B, Arsac M (2004) Effect of an oral bulking agent and a rectal laxative administered alone or in combination for the treatment of constipation. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 28:438–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ramkumar D, Rao SS (2005) Efficacy and safety of traditional medical therapy for chronic constipation: systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 100:936–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andromanakos N, Skandalakis P, Troupis T, Filippou D (2006) Constipation of anorectal outlet obstruction: pathophysiology, evaluation and management. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 21:638–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pucciani F, Magali R, Ringressi MN (2011) Obstructed defecation: what is the role of rehabilitation? Colorectal Dis. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02644.x
  6. 6.
    O’Donnell LJ, Virjee J, Heaton KW (1988) Pseudo-diarrhoea in the irritable bowel syndrome: patients’ records of stool form reflect transit time while stool frequency does not. Gut 29:A1455Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bharucha AE, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S (2006) Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 130:1510–1518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Altomare DF, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M, Dodi G, Ghiselli R, Piloni V (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 10:84–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piloni V, Genovesi N, Grassi R, Lazzini S, Pieri L, Pomerri F (1993) National working team report on defecography. Radiol Med 85:784–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pucciani F, Rottoli ML, Bologna A et al (1996) Anterior rectocele and anorectal dysfunction. Int J Colorectal Dis 11:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martelli H, Devroede G, Arhan P, Duguay C, Dornic C, Faverdin C (1978) Some parameters of large bowel motility in normal man. Gastroenterology 75:612–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pucciani F, Rottoli ML, Bologna A et al (1998) Pelvic floor dyssynergia and bimodal rehabilitation: results of combined pelviperineal kinesitherapy and biofeedback training. Int J Colorectal Dis 13:124–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pucciani F, Ringressi MN, Redditi S, Masi A, Giani I (2008) Rehabilitation of fecal incontinence after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer: encouraging results. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1552–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khaikin M, Wexner SD (2006) Treatment strategies in obstructed defecation and fecal incontinence. World J Gastroenterol 12:3168–3173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Camilleri M, Bharucha AE (2010) Behavioural and new pharmacological treatments for constipation: getting the balance right. Gut 59:1288–1296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiarioni G, Heymen S, Whitehead WE (2006) Biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation. World J Gastroenterol 12:7069–7074PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heymen S, Jones KR, Scarlett Y, Whitehead WE (2003) Biofeedback treatment of constipation: a critical review. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1208–1217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palsson OS, Heymen S, Whitehead WE (2004) Biofeedback treatment for functional anorectal disorders: a comprehensive efficacy review. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 29:153–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koh CE, Young CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2008) Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction. Br J Surg 95:1079–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheskin LJ, Kamal N, Crowell MD, Schuster MM, Whitehead WE (1995) Mechanisms of constipation in older persons and effects of fiber compared with placebo. J Am Geriatr Soc 43:666–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Attaluri A, Donahoe R, Valestin J, Brown K, Rao SS (2011) Randomised clinical trial: dried plums (prunes) vs psyllium for constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 33:822–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevens J, VanSoest PJ, Robertson JB, Levitsky DA (1988) Comparison of the effects of Psyllium and wheat bran on gastrointestinal transit time and stool characteristics. J Am Diet Assoc 88:323–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marteau P, Flourié B, Cherbut C et al (1994) Digestibility and bulking effect of ispaghula husks in healthy humans. Gut 35:1747–1752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical and Surgical Critical CareUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations