Terra M P, Dobben A C, Berghmans B, Deutekom M, Baeten C G M I, Janssen L W M, Boeckxstaens G E E, Engel A F, Felt-Bersma R J F, Slors J F M, Gerhards M F, Bijnen A B, Everhardt E, Schouten W R, Bossuyt P M M, Stoker J
Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, G1-229, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Aug;49(8):1149-59. doi: 10.1007/s10350-006-0569-3.
Pelvic floor rehabilitation is an appealing treatment for patients with fecal incontinence but reported results vary. This study was designed to assess the outcome of pelvic floor rehabilitation in a large series of consecutive patients with fecal incontinence caused by different etiologies.
A total of 281 patients (252 females) were included. Data about medical history, anal manometry, rectal capacity measurement, and endoanal sonography were collected. Subgroups of patients were defined by anal sphincter complex integrity, and nature and possible underlying causes of fecal incontinence. Subsequently patients were referred for pelvic floor rehabilitation, comprising nine sessions of electric stimulation and pelvic floor muscle training with biofeedback. Pelvic floor rehabilitation outcome was documented with Vaizey score, anal manometry, and rectal capacity measurement findings.
Vaizey score improved from baseline in 143 of 239 patients (60 percent), remained unchanged in 56 patients (23 percent), and deteriorated in 40 patients (17 percent). Mean Vaizey score reduced with 3.2 points (P < 0.001). A Vaizey score reduction of >or= 50 percent was observed in 32 patients (13 percent). Mean squeeze pressure (+5.1 mmHg; P = 0.04) and maximal tolerated volume (+11 ml; P = 0.01) improved from baseline. Resting pressure (P = 0.22), sensory threshold (P = 0.52), and urge sensation (P = 0.06) remained unchanged. Subgroup analyses did not show substantial differences in effects of pelvic floor rehabilitation between subgroups.
Pelvic floor rehabilitation leads overall to a modest improvement in severity of fecal incontinence, squeeze pressure, and maximal tolerated volume. Only in a few patients, a substantial improvement of the baseline Vaizey score was observed. Further studies are needed to identify patients who most likely will benefit from pelvic floor rehabilitation.
盆底康复对大便失禁患者来说是一种有吸引力的治疗方法,但报告的结果各不相同。本研究旨在评估一大组连续的、由不同病因引起大便失禁的患者接受盆底康复的效果。
共纳入281例患者(252例女性)。收集了病史、肛门测压、直肠容量测量和肛管超声检查的数据。根据肛门括约肌复合体完整性、大便失禁的性质和可能的潜在病因对患者进行分组。随后,患者接受盆底康复治疗,包括9次电刺激和生物反馈盆底肌肉训练。通过韦齐评分、肛门测压和直肠容量测量结果记录盆底康复效果。
239例患者中有143例(60%)的韦齐评分较基线有所改善,56例患者(23%)保持不变,40例患者(17%)恶化。韦齐评分平均降低3.2分(P<0.001)。32例患者(13%)的韦齐评分降低≥50%。平均挤压压力(+5.1 mmHg;P=0.04)和最大耐受容量(+11 ml;P=0.01)较基线有所改善。静息压力(P=0.22)、感觉阈值(P=0.52)和便意(P=0.06)保持不变。亚组分析未显示各亚组之间盆底康复效果存在实质性差异。
盆底康复总体上使大便失禁的严重程度、挤压压力和最大耐受容量有适度改善。仅少数患者的基线韦齐评分有显著改善。需要进一步研究以确定最可能从盆底康复中获益的患者。