Neurourology and urodynamics · 2015
Is electromyography a predictive test of patient response to biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence?
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.
Lacima Gloria, Pera Miguel, González-Argenté Xavier, Torrents Abiguei, Valls-Solé Josep, Espuña-Pons Montserrat
Аннотация
AIM: Biofeedback is effective in more than 70% of patients with fecal incontinence. However, reliable predictors of successful treatment have not been identified. The aim was to identify clinical variables and diagnostic tests, particularly electromyography, that could predict a successful outcome.
METHODS: We included 135 consecutive women with fecal incontinence treated with biofeedback. Clinical evaluation, manometry, ultrasonography, electromyography, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency were performed before therapy. Treatment outcome was assessed using a symptoms diary, Wexner incontinence score and the patient's subjective perception.
RESULTS: According to the symptoms diaries, 106 (78.5%) women had a good clinical result and 29 (21.5%) had a poor result. There were no differences in age, severity and type of fecal incontinence. Maximum resting pressure (39.3 ± 19.1 mmHg vs. 33.7 ± 20.2 mmHg; P = 0.156) and maximum squeeze pressure (91.8 ± 33.2 mmHg vs. 79.8 ± 31.2 mmHg; P = 0.127) were higher in patients having good clinical outcome although the difference was not significant. There were no differences in the presence of sphincter defects or abnormalities in electromyographic recordings. Logistic regression analysis found no independent predictive factor for good clinical outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback is effective in more than 75% of patients with fecal incontinence. Clinical characteristics of patients and results of baseline tests have no predictive value of response to therapy. Specifically, we found no association between severity of electromyographic deficit and clinical response.
METHODS: We included 135 consecutive women with fecal incontinence treated with biofeedback. Clinical evaluation, manometry, ultrasonography, electromyography, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency were performed before therapy. Treatment outcome was assessed using a symptoms diary, Wexner incontinence score and the patient's subjective perception.
RESULTS: According to the symptoms diaries, 106 (78.5%) women had a good clinical result and 29 (21.5%) had a poor result. There were no differences in age, severity and type of fecal incontinence. Maximum resting pressure (39.3 ± 19.1 mmHg vs. 33.7 ± 20.2 mmHg; P = 0.156) and maximum squeeze pressure (91.8 ± 33.2 mmHg vs. 79.8 ± 31.2 mmHg; P = 0.127) were higher in patients having good clinical outcome although the difference was not significant. There were no differences in the presence of sphincter defects or abnormalities in electromyographic recordings. Logistic regression analysis found no independent predictive factor for good clinical outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback is effective in more than 75% of patients with fecal incontinence. Clinical characteristics of patients and results of baseline tests have no predictive value of response to therapy. Specifically, we found no association between severity of electromyographic deficit and clinical response.