Journal of pediatric surgery · 2023
Efficacy of Biofeedback in Paediatric Urology Patients: A Single Centre Experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reddy Snigdha Mettu, Gray Harriet, Barry Tammy, Bessell Bridie, Shalaby Mohamed, Woodward Mark, Awad Karim
Аннотация
AIM OF THE STUDY: Biofeedback assisted pelvic floor muscle training is an underutilised nonpharmacological treatment in paediatric urology. We reviewed all patients who underwent a course of treatment at our centre to evaluate its efficacy.
METHODS: All patients who underwent a full cycle of biofeedback in the paediatric urology department from 2016 to 2023 were identified. Demographics and outcomes following treatment were accessed.
RESULTS: 42 patients (28 female) were identified who underwent 8 one-hour sessions on a weekly basis constituted a completed cycle of treatment. Patients were identified for treatment as per local lower urinary tract symptom guidelines and following discussion in a fortnightly urology MDT and including diagnoses of overactive bladder, dysfunctional voiding, and giggle incontinence. Outcomes were measured as successful 29% (continence, normal postvoid residuals, clean intermittent catherization discontinued), partially successful 19% (reduced wetting, abnormal post void residuals, ongoing CIC) and unsuccessful 52% (no change for patient). Age at time of treatment affected likelihood of success: <9 years, 0% success; ≥9 years, 57% [p < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in success for 9-11 years [60%] vs >11 years [56%].
CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback has shown success with improvement in symptoms in 48% of patients (complete or partial), which increases to 57% success in ≥9 years group. We would advocate its use in these difficult to manage patients with LUTS.
METHODS: All patients who underwent a full cycle of biofeedback in the paediatric urology department from 2016 to 2023 were identified. Demographics and outcomes following treatment were accessed.
RESULTS: 42 patients (28 female) were identified who underwent 8 one-hour sessions on a weekly basis constituted a completed cycle of treatment. Patients were identified for treatment as per local lower urinary tract symptom guidelines and following discussion in a fortnightly urology MDT and including diagnoses of overactive bladder, dysfunctional voiding, and giggle incontinence. Outcomes were measured as successful 29% (continence, normal postvoid residuals, clean intermittent catherization discontinued), partially successful 19% (reduced wetting, abnormal post void residuals, ongoing CIC) and unsuccessful 52% (no change for patient). Age at time of treatment affected likelihood of success: <9 years, 0% success; ≥9 years, 57% [p < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in success for 9-11 years [60%] vs >11 years [56%].
CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback has shown success with improvement in symptoms in 48% of patients (complete or partial), which increases to 57% success in ≥9 years group. We would advocate its use in these difficult to manage patients with LUTS.