Biofeedback improves functional outcome after sphincteroplasty
- 23 Downloads
The primary treatment for obstetric sphincter injury is overlapping sphincteroplasty. However, despite restoration of the anatomy, only 65 percent of patients are fully continent. PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine if postoperative biofeedback improved continence in patients with poor functional outcomes after sphincteroplasty. METHOD: Outcomes of 28 patients who underwent electromyographic biofeedback training after sphincteroplasty for obstetric sphincter injury were reviewed. Nine patients had an accompanying levatorplasty. Average age was 34 (range, 23–57) years. Patients began biofeedback a mean of 32 (range, 2–192) months postoperatively. Before beginning biofeedback, patients completed an incontinence questionnaire, bowel diary, and scored their incontinence. At the end of treatment, they were again asked to score their incontinence and rate their improvement. Using an incontinence scale with a maximum score of 30, the average incontinence score before biofeedback was 20 (range, 13–30). Incontinent episodes per week ranged from one to nine. Sixteen patients were incontinent to solid stool. RESULTS: Overall, the average posttreatment incontinence score decreased from 20 to 3 (P< 0.0001). Average number of incontinent episodes per week decreased from 5.4 to 1.4 (P< 0.0001) Twenty-five patients (89 percent) reported improvement in their continence. All had a posttreatment incontinent score of less than three. Three patients noted no improvement. Of those, one subsequently had a colostomy, one is waiting the implant of an artificial anal sphincter, and one has sought no further treatment. There were no complications reported. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback improves functional outcome after sphincteroplasty and is a reasonable option for patients with less than optimum outcome after sphincteroplasty.
Key wordsFecal incontinence Anal sphincteroplasty Biofeedback
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 8.Morgan S, Bernard D, Tasse D, Wassef R. Results of Parks' sphincteroplasty for post traumatic anal incontinence [meeting abstract]. Can J Surg 1987;30:299.Google Scholar
- 11.Engel BT, Nikoomanesh P, Schuster MM. Operant conditioning of rectosphincteric responses in the treatment of fecal incontinence. N Engl J Med 1944;290:646–9.Google Scholar
- 14.Rothenberger DA. Anal incontinence. In: Cameron JL, ed. Current surgical therapy. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: BC Decker, 1989:186–94.Google Scholar
- 15.Monthly vital statistics report, U.S. Hyattsville: Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1993.Google Scholar
- 18.Jensen LL, Lowry AC. Biofeedback for anal incontinence: what is the mechanism of success? [meeting abstract]. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:11.Google Scholar
- 20.McHugh S, Kersey K, Diamant NE. Biofeedback training for fecal incontinence: outcome according to physiological parameters. Gastroenterolgy 1988;94:A295.Google Scholar