Diseases of the colon and rectum · 1997
Biofeedback is effective treatment for levator ani syndrome.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Heah S M, Ho Y H, Tan M, Leong A F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The effects of biofeedback (BF) on pain relief and anorectal physiology in patients with levator ani syndrome (LAS) were prospectively studied.
METHOD: Sixteen consecutive patients (9 men, 7 women; mean age, 50.1 (range, 39-66) years) with LAS were treated with BF from July 1993 to October 1995. Mean duration of pain was 32.5 (standard error of the mean, 6.7) months. All underwent a full course of BF using a manometric balloon technique. Mean follow-up was 12.8 (standard error of the mean, 2.6) months. Pain score and anorectal physiology tests were administered prospectively by an independent observer before and after BF.
RESULTS: After BF, the pain score was significantly improved (before BF: median, 8 (range, 6-10); after BF: median, 2 (range, 1-4); P < 0.02). Analgesic requirements were also significantly reduced (all 16 patients needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) before BF; only two patients needed NSAID after BF; P < 0.03). There were no significant changes to the anorectal physiology parameters after BF. To date, there have been no side effects or regressions.
CONCLUSION: Although BF had a negligible effect on anorectal physiologic measurements in LAS, it was effective in pain relief, with no side effects.
METHOD: Sixteen consecutive patients (9 men, 7 women; mean age, 50.1 (range, 39-66) years) with LAS were treated with BF from July 1993 to October 1995. Mean duration of pain was 32.5 (standard error of the mean, 6.7) months. All underwent a full course of BF using a manometric balloon technique. Mean follow-up was 12.8 (standard error of the mean, 2.6) months. Pain score and anorectal physiology tests were administered prospectively by an independent observer before and after BF.
RESULTS: After BF, the pain score was significantly improved (before BF: median, 8 (range, 6-10); after BF: median, 2 (range, 1-4); P < 0.02). Analgesic requirements were also significantly reduced (all 16 patients needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) before BF; only two patients needed NSAID after BF; P < 0.03). There were no significant changes to the anorectal physiology parameters after BF. To date, there have been no side effects or regressions.
CONCLUSION: Although BF had a negligible effect on anorectal physiologic measurements in LAS, it was effective in pain relief, with no side effects.