Opinion statement
-
The diagnosis of outlet dysfunction constipation in patients with idiopathic constipation that responds poorly or not at all to conservative measures, such as fiber supplements, fluids, and stimulant laxatives, is based upon diagnostic testing. These tests include colonic transit of radio-opaque markers, anorectal manometry or electromyography, barium defecography, and expulsion of a water-filled balloon. The literature suggests that conditions such as pelvic floor dyssynergia exist but may be over-diagnosed as a laboratory artifact. In our laboratory, we screen patients with balloon expulsion studies, and then test for dyssynergia only if the result of the balloon expulsion test is abnormal. In my opinion, anal sphincter electromyogram and manometry are equivalent in establishing the diagnosis. Barium defecography is helpful in making a diagnosis of a rectocele, but I prefer to document that vaginal pressure on the rectocele significantly improves rectal evacuation. Manometry also helps to establish the presence of megarectum, hypotonia, and weak expulsion efforts.
-
Conceptually, biofeedback training, which incorporates simulated defecation, is the most logical approach to pelvic floor dyssynergia. It incurs no risk and benefits 60% to 80% of patients. The drawbacks are the time-intensive nature of the therapy and the short-term costs, which are offset if there is sustained benefit.
-
There is no evidence that biofeedback is helpful in children with constipation. Habit training has established benefits, but recurrences are frequent and long-term reinforcement is helpful to maintain success. Laxatives and enemas are adjunctive therapies in both habit training and biofeedback.
-
Surgery is effective in those uncommon patients with physiologically significant rectoceles, but surgical division of the puborectalis muscle is risky and unproven. Likewise, botulinum toxin injection into the puborectalis is unproven, but the effects are rarely permanent should incontinence occur.
-
Diagnostic measures and therapeutic success are enhanced when patients are seen in centers experienced with the evaluation of these disorders.
Similar content being viewed by others
References and Recommended Reading
Whitehead WE, Wald A, Diamant NE, et al.: Functional disorders of the anus and rectum. In Rome II: The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Diagnosis, Pathophysiology, and Treatment: A Multinational Consensus, edn 2. Edited by Drossman DA. McLean, VA: Degnon Associates; 2000:483–532. A comprehensive and extensively referenced classification of functional anorectal disorders, including outlet dysfunction disorders.
Wald A: Anorectal and colonic dysmotility. In Slide Atlas of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol 2. Edited by Feldman F. Philadelphia: Current Medicine; 1996: Slide 30.
Roberts JP: Evidence from dynamic integrated proctography to redefine anismus. Br J Surg 1992, 79:1213–1215.
Chiotakakou-Faliakou E, Kamm MA, Roy AJ, et al.: Biofeedback provides long-term benefit for patients with intractable slow and normal transit constipation. Gut 1998, 42:517–521.
Enck P: Biofeedback training in disordered defecation: a critical review. Dig Dis Sci 1993, 38:1953–1960. A critical review of the literature concerning efficacy of biofeedback for functional disorders of defecation.
Duthie HL, Bartolo DCC: Anismus: the cause of constipation? Results of investigation and treatment. World J Surg 1992, 16:831–835.
Voderholzer WA, Neuhaus DA, Klauser AG, et al.: Paradoxical sphincter contraction is rarely indicative of anismus. Gut 1997, 41:258–262.
Whitehead WE, Schuster MM: Gastrointestinal Disorders: Behavioral and Physiological Basis for Treatment. Orlando: Academic Press; 1985:255–260.
Bleijenberg G, Kuijpers HC: Biofeedback treatment of constipation: a comparison of two methods. Am J Gastroenterol 1994, 89:1021–1026.
Ho YH, Tan M, Goh HS: Clinical and physiologic effects of biofeedback in outlet obstruction constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1996, 39:520–524.
Koutsomanis D, Lennard-Jones JE, Roy AJ, et al.: Controlled randomized trial of visual biofeedback versus muscle training without a visual display for intractable constipation. Gut 1995, 37:95–99.
Koutsomanis D, Lennard-Jones JE, Kamm MA: Prospective study of biofeedback treatment for patients with slow and normal transit constipation. Euro J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1994, 6:131–137.
Patankar SK, Ferrara A, Levy JR, et al.: Biofeedback in colorectal practice: a multicenter, statewide, three-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1997, 40:827–831.
Rao SS, Welcher KD, Pelsang RE: Effects of biofeedback therapy on anorectal function in obstructive defecation. Dig Dis Sci 1997, 42:2197–2205.
Gilliland R, Heymen JS, Altomare DF, et al.: Biofeedback for intractable rectal pain: outcome and predictors of success. Dis Colon Rectum 1997, 40:190–196.
van der Plas RN, Benninga MA, Büller H, et al.: Biofeedback training in treatment of childhood constipation: a randomised controlled study. Lancet 1996, 348:776–778. One of the rare randomized controlled studies in the biofeedback literature, and which failed to demonstrate a significant role for biofeedback therapy in children with this disorder.
Hallan RI, Melling J, Womack NR, et al.: Treatment of anismus in intractable constipation with botulinum A toxin. Lancet 1988, 714–717.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wald, A. Outlet dysfunction constipation. Curr Treat Options Gastro 4, 293–297 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-001-0054-y
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-001-0054-y