Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2015
Supplementary home biofeedback improves quality of life in younger patients with fecal incontinence.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Bartlett Lynne, Sloots Kathryn, Nowak Madeleine, Ho Yik-Hong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Biofeedback is a scarce, resource-intensive clinical therapy. It is used to treat patients with bowel problems, including fecal incontinence (FI), who fail to respond to simple dietary advice, medication, or pelvic floor exercises. Populations are aging and younger cohorts use technology in managing their health, affording FI self-management opportunities.
AIM: Does supplementary home-based biofeedback improve FI and quality of life (QOL)?
METHODS: Seventy-five incontinent participants (12 male), mean age 61.1 years, consented to participate. Thirty-nine patients (5 male) were randomized to the standard biofeedback protocol plus daily home use of a Peritron perineometer (intervention) and 36 patients (7 male) to the standard biofeedback protocol (control). On completion of the study each perineometer exercise session was rated for technique by 2 raters, blinded to the patient and order of sessions.
RESULTS: With the exception of Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale lifestyle improvement (intervention--9.1% vs. controls--0.3%, P=0.026) and embarrassment improvement (intervention--50.0% vs. controls--18.3%, P=0.026), supplementary home biofeedback did not result in greater clinical improvement for the intervention group as a whole. However, on stratification around the mean age, continence and QOL of younger people in the intervention group were significantly better than those of their control counterparts. Graphed perineometer sessions demonstrated high compliance and improvement in exercise technique. Perineometers provided reassurance, motivation, and an exercise reminder ensuring that confidence was achieved quickly.
CONCLUSIONS: Home biofeedback was acceptable and well tolerated by all users. Younger participants significantly benefited from using this technology.
AIM: Does supplementary home-based biofeedback improve FI and quality of life (QOL)?
METHODS: Seventy-five incontinent participants (12 male), mean age 61.1 years, consented to participate. Thirty-nine patients (5 male) were randomized to the standard biofeedback protocol plus daily home use of a Peritron perineometer (intervention) and 36 patients (7 male) to the standard biofeedback protocol (control). On completion of the study each perineometer exercise session was rated for technique by 2 raters, blinded to the patient and order of sessions.
RESULTS: With the exception of Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale lifestyle improvement (intervention--9.1% vs. controls--0.3%, P=0.026) and embarrassment improvement (intervention--50.0% vs. controls--18.3%, P=0.026), supplementary home biofeedback did not result in greater clinical improvement for the intervention group as a whole. However, on stratification around the mean age, continence and QOL of younger people in the intervention group were significantly better than those of their control counterparts. Graphed perineometer sessions demonstrated high compliance and improvement in exercise technique. Perineometers provided reassurance, motivation, and an exercise reminder ensuring that confidence was achieved quickly.
CONCLUSIONS: Home biofeedback was acceptable and well tolerated by all users. Younger participants significantly benefited from using this technology.