Heymen Steve, Jones Kenneth R, Scarlett Yolanda, Whitehead William E
Center for Functional Gastrointestinal and Motility Disorders, Department of Medicine, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Sep;46(9):1208-17. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-6717-8.
This review was designed to 1) critically examine the research design used in investigations of biofeedback for pelvic floor dyssynergia, 2) compare the various biofeedback treatment protocols for pelvic floor dyssynergia-type constipation used in this research, 3) identify factors that influence treatment outcome, and 4) identify goals for future biofeedback research for pelvic floor dyssynergia.
A comprehensive review of both the pediatric and adult research from 1970 to 2002 on "biofeedback for constipation" was conducted using a Medline search in all languages. Only prospective studies including five or more subjects that described the treatment protocol were included. In addition, a meta-analysis of these studies was performed to compare the outcome of different biofeedback protocols for treating constipation.
Thirty-eight studies were reviewed, and sample size, treatment protocol, outcome rates, number of sessions, and etiology are shown in a table. Ten studies using a parallel treatment design were reviewed in detail, including seven that randomized subjects to treatment groups. A meta-analysis (weighted by subjects) was performed to compare the results of two treatment protocols prevalent in the literature. The mean success rate of studies using pressure biofeedback (78 percent) was superior (P = 0.018) to the mean success rate for studies using electromyography biofeedback (70 percent). However, the mean success rates comparing studies using intra-anal electromyography sensors to studies using perianal electromyography sensors were 69 and 72 percent, respectively, indicating no advantages for one type of electromyography protocol over the other (P = 0.428). In addition to the varied protocols and instrumentation used, there also are inconsistencies in the literature regarding the severity and etiology of symptoms, patient selection criteria, and the definition of a successful outcome. Finally, no anatomic, physiologic, or demographic variables were identified that would assist in predicting successful outcome. Having significant psychological symptoms was identified as a factor that may influence treatment outcome, but this requires further study.
Although most studies report positive results using biofeedback to treat constipation, quality research is lacking. Specific recommendations are made for future investigations to 1) improve experimental design, 2) clearly define outcome measures, 3) identify the etiology and severity of symptoms, 4) determine which treatment protocol and which component of treatment is most effective for different types of subjects, 5) systematically explore the role of psychopathology in this population, 6) use an adequate sample size that allows for meaningful analysis, and 7) include long-term follow-up data.
本综述旨在:1)严格审查用于盆底协同失调生物反馈研究的研究设计;2)比较本研究中用于盆底协同失调型便秘的各种生物反馈治疗方案;3)确定影响治疗结果的因素;4)确定未来盆底协同失调生物反馈研究的目标。
使用Medline对1970年至2002年关于“便秘生物反馈”的儿科和成人研究进行全面综述,检索所有语言的文献。仅纳入包括五个或更多受试者且描述了治疗方案的前瞻性研究。此外,对这些研究进行荟萃分析,以比较不同生物反馈方案治疗便秘的结果。
共审查了38项研究,样本量、治疗方案、结果率、疗程数和病因列于表中。对10项采用平行治疗设计的研究进行了详细审查,其中7项将受试者随机分组至治疗组。进行了一项荟萃分析(按受试者加权)以比较文献中两种常见治疗方案的结果。使用压力生物反馈的研究平均成功率(78%)高于使用肌电图生物反馈的研究平均成功率(70%)(P = 0.018)。然而,比较使用肛门内肌电图传感器的研究与使用肛周肌电图传感器的研究,其平均成功率分别为69%和72%,表明一种肌电图方案并不优于另一种(P = 0.428)。除了使用的方案和仪器各不相同外,文献中关于症状的严重程度和病因、患者选择标准以及成功结果的定义也存在不一致之处。最后,未发现有助于预测成功结果的解剖学、生理学或人口统计学变量。有明显的心理症状被确定为可能影响治疗结果的一个因素,但这需要进一步研究。
尽管大多数研究报告使用生物反馈治疗便秘取得了积极结果,但缺乏高质量研究。对未来研究提出了具体建议,以:1)改进实验设计;2)明确界定结果测量指标;3)确定症状的病因和严重程度;4)确定哪种治疗方案以及治疗的哪个组成部分对不同类型的受试者最有效;5)系统地探索精神病理学在该人群中的作用;6)使用足够大的样本量以便进行有意义的分析;7)纳入长期随访数据。