Chiarioni G, Bassotti G, Stanganini Samuela, Vantini I, Whitehead W E
Divisione di Riabilitazione Gastroenterologica, Universitá di Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera di Verona, Centro Ospedaliero Clinicizzato, Valeggio sul Mincio, Italy.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jan;97(1):109-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05429.x.
Biofeedback is a nonsurgical treatment that reportedly produces good results in 65-75% of fecally incontinent patients. However, previous studies have not ruled out nonspecific treatment effects. It is also unknown whether biofeedback works primarily by improving the strength of the striated pelvic floor muscles or by improving the rectal perception. We aimed to 1) evaluate the efficacy of biofeedback in formed-stool fecal incontinence, 2) assess the relative contribution of sensory and strength retraining to biofeedback outcomes, and 3) identify patient characteristics that predict a good response to treatment.
Twenty-four patients with frequent (at least once a week) solid-stool incontinence were provided with three to four biofeedback sessions. They were taught to squeeze in response to progressively weaker rectal distentions. Patients were re-evaluated by anorectal manometry and symptom diary 3 months after completing training and by diary and interview 6-12 months after training.
Seventeen (71%) were classified responders; 13 became continent and four reduced incontinence frequency by at least 75%. Clinical improvements were maintained at 12-month follow-up. At 3-month follow-up, responders had significantly lower thresholds for perception of rectal distention and for sphincter contraction, but squeeze pressures did not significantly differ from those of nonresponders. Baseline measures that predicted a favorable response were sensory threshold (50 ml or less), urge threshold (100 ml or less), lower threshold for sphincter contraction, and lower threshold for the rectoanal inhibitory reflex; neither anal squeeze pressure nor severity of incontinence predicted treatment outcome.
In solid-stool fecal incontinence biofeedback training effects are robust and seem not to be explained by expectancy or nonspecific treatment effect. Sensory retraining appears to be more relevant than strength training to the success of biofeedback.
生物反馈是一种非手术治疗方法,据报道在65%至75%的大便失禁患者中能产生良好效果。然而,以往的研究并未排除非特异性治疗效果。生物反馈主要是通过增强盆底横纹肌力量还是改善直肠感知起作用也尚不清楚。我们旨在:1)评估生物反馈对成形粪便大便失禁的疗效;2)评估感觉再训练和力量再训练对生物反馈结果的相对贡献;3)确定能预测对治疗有良好反应的患者特征。
为24例频繁(至少每周一次)固体粪便失禁患者提供三至四次生物反馈治疗。教导他们在直肠扩张逐渐变弱时进行收缩。患者在完成训练3个月后通过肛门直肠测压和症状日记进行重新评估,并在训练6至12个月后通过日记和访谈进行评估。
17例(71%)被归类为有反应者;13例实现了控便,4例失禁频率降低了至少75%。12个月随访时临床改善得以维持。在3个月随访时,有反应者对直肠扩张和括约肌收缩的感知阈值显著更低,但收缩压与无反应者相比无显著差异。预测良好反应的基线指标为感觉阈值(50毫升或更低)、急迫阈值(100毫升或更低)、括约肌收缩的更低阈值以及直肠肛门抑制反射的更低阈值;肛门收缩压和失禁严重程度均不能预测治疗结果。
在固体粪便大便失禁中,生物反馈训练效果显著,似乎无法用期望或非特异性治疗效果来解释。感觉再训练对生物反馈的成功似乎比力量训练更为重要。