Dataset Information

Electrical stimulation and biofeedback for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This systematic review determines the best known form of biofeedback (BF) and/or electrical stimulation (ES) for the treatment of fecal incontinence in adults and rates the quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Attention is given to type, strength, and application mode of the current for ES and to safety.

Methods

Methods followed the Cochrane Handbook. Randomized controlled trials were included. Studies were searched in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42011001334).

Results

BF and/or ES were studied in 13 randomized parallel-group trials. In 12 trials, at least one therapy group received BF alone and/or in combination with ES, while ES alone was evaluated in seven trials. Three (four) trials were rated as of high (moderate) quality. Average current strength was reported in three of seven studies investigating ES; only two studies reached the therapeutic window. No trial showed superiority of control, or of BF alone or of ES alone when compared with BF + ES. Superiority of BF + ES over any monotherapy was demonstrated in several trials. Amplitude-modulated medium-frequency (AM-MF) stimulation, also termed pre-modulated interferential stimulation, combined with BF was superior to both low-frequency ES and BF alone, and 50 % of the patients were continent after 6 months of treatment. Effects increased with treatment duration. Safety reporting was bad, and there are safety issues with some forms of low-frequency ES.

Conclusions

There is sufficient evidence for the efficacy of BF plus ES combined in treating fecal incontinence. AM-MF plus BF seems to be the most effective and safe treatment.

Key messages

• The higher the quality of the randomized trial the more likely was a significant difference between treatment groups. • Two times more patients became continent when biofeedback was used instead of a control, such as pelvic floor exercises. • Two times more patients became continent when biofeedback plus electrical stimulation was used instead of biofeedback only. • Low-frequency electrical stimulation can have adverse device effects, and this is in contrast to amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrical stimulation. • There is high quality evidence that amplitude-modulated medium-frequency electrical stimulation plus electromyography biofeedback is the best second-line treatment for fecal incontinence.

SUBMITTER: Vonthein R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3824723 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Electrical stimulation and biofeedback for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic review.

Vonthein Reinhard R Heimerl Tankred T Schwandner Thilo T Ziegler Andreas A

International journal of colorectal disease 20130731 11

<h4>Purpose</h4>This systematic review determines the best known form of biofeedback (BF) and/or electrical stimulation (ES) for the treatment of fecal incontinence in adults and rates the quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Attention is given to type, strength, and application mode of the current for ES and to safety.<h4>Methods</h4>Methods followed the Cochrane Handbook. Randomized controlled trials were included. Studies were search ...[more]

PMID: 23900652

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although behavioral therapy has been shown to improve postoperative recovery of continence, there have been no controlled trials of behavioral therapy for postprostatectomy incontinence persisting more than 1 year.To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral therapy for reducing persistent postprostatectomy incontinence and to determine whether the technologies of biofeedback and pelvic floor electrical stimulation enhance the effectiveness of behavioral therapy.A prospective randomized controlled trial involving 208 community-dwelling men aged 51 through 84 years with incontinence persisting 1 to 17 years after radical prostatectomy was conducted at a university and 2 Veterans Affairs continence clinics (2003-2008) and included a 1-year follow-up after active treatment. Twenty-four percent of the men were African American; 75%, white.After stratification by type and frequency of incontinence, participants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 8 weeks of behavioral therapy (pelvic floor muscle training and bladder control strategies); behavioral therapy plus in-office, dual-channel electromyograph biofeedback and daily home pelvic floor electrical stimulation at 20 Hz, current up to 100 mA (behavior plus); or delayed treatment, which served as the control group.Percentage reduction in mean number of incontinence episodes after 8 weeks of treatment as documented in 7-day bladder diaries.Mean incontinence episodes decreased from 28 to 13 per week (55% reduction; 95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-66%) after behavioral therapy and from 26 to 12 (51% reduction; 95% CI, 37%-65%) after behavior plus therapy. Both reductions were significantly greater than the reduction from 25 to 21 (24% reduction; 95% CI, 10%-39%) observed among controls (P = .001 for both treatment groups). However, there was no significant difference in incontinence reduction between the treatment groups (P = .69). Improvements were durable to 12 months in the active treatment groups: 50% reduction (95% CI, 39.8%-61.1%; 13.5 episodes per week) in the behavioral group and 59% reduction (95% CI, 45.0%-73.1%; 9.1 episodes per week) in the behavior plus group (P = .32).Among patients with postprostatectomy incontinence for at least 1 year, 8 weeks of behavioral therapy, compared with a delayed-treatment control, resulted in fewer incontinence episodes. The addition of biofeedback and pelvic floor electrical stimulation did not result in greater effectiveness.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00212264.

Project description:BackgroundIntravaginal electrical stimulation (IVES) has been explored as a potential treatment for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), although its efficacy remains a subject of debate. We aim to conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of relevant trials.MethodsThis meta-analysis was performed under the PRISMA 2020 guideline. We meticulously searched for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in various databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, spanning from inception to March 6, 2023. All studies included one treatment group of intravaginal electrical stimulation and the diseases spectrum of the studies involved different kinds of PFDs, including urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, etc. Risk of bias charts were used to assess the risk of bias in the studies and forest plots were used the demonstrate the overall effects.ResultsOur analysis encompassed a total of 13 RCT studies. In most of the assessed PFD cure outcomes, the results demonstrated positive effects of IVES therapy, as indicated by the following findings: daily voiding frequency (MD = -1.57, 95% CI = -3.08 to -0.06, I 2 = 68%,), nocturia (MD = -1.07, 95% CI = -2.01 to -0.13, I 2 = 71%), Pad test, and Urinary incontinence. Nevertheless, the data concerning the impact of IVES therapy on the quality of life of individuals with PFDs did not confirm these positive results.DiscussionIn light of the insufficiency in both the quality and quantity of the included studies, it is premature to draw a definitive conclusion regarding the efficacy of IVES therapy for treating PFDs. Nonetheless, our study does provide several pieces of evidence in support of the potential therapeutic effects of electrical stimulation therapy in this context. We recommend that further research in this area be conducted to provide more conclusive insights into the efficacy of IVES therapy for PFDs.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023442171.

Project description:ObjectiveDefecatory symptoms, such as a sense of incomplete emptying and straining with bowel movements, are paradoxically present in women with fecal incontinence. Treatments for fecal incontinence, such as loperamide and biofeedback, can worsen or improve defecatory symptoms, respectively. The primary aim of this study was to compare changes in constipation symptoms in women undergoing treatment for fecal incontinence with education only, loperamide, anal muscle exercises with biofeedback or both loperamide and biofeedback. Our secondary aim was to compare changes in constipation symptoms among responders and nonresponders to fecal incontinence treatment.Study designThis was a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing 2 first-line therapies for fecal incontinence in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Women with at least monthly fecal incontinence and normal stool consistency were randomized to 4 groups: (1) oral placebo plus education only, (2) oral loperamide plus education only, (3) placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and (4) loperamide plus biofeedback. Defecatory symptoms were measured using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms questionnaire at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms consists of 12 items that contribute to a global score and 3 subscales: stool characteristics/symptoms (hardness of stool, size of stool, straining, inability to pass stool), rectal symptoms (burning, pain, bleeding, incomplete bowel movement), and abdominal symptoms (discomfort, pain, bloating, cramps). Scores for each subscale as well as the global score range from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (maximum score), with negative change scores representing improvement in defecatory symptoms. Responders to fecal incontinence treatment were defined as women with a minimally important clinical improvement of ≥5 points on the St Mark's (Vaizey) scale between baseline and 24 weeks. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using a longitudinal mixed model, controlling for baseline scores, to estimate changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores from baseline through 24 weeks.ResultsAt 24 weeks, there were small changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms global scores in all 4 groups: oral placebo plus education (-0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1), loperamide plus education (-0.1, 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to0.0), oral placebo plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2), and loperamide plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2). No differences were observed in change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores between women randomized to placebo plus education and those randomized to loperamide plus education (P = .17) or placebo plus biofeedback (P = .82). Change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores in women randomized to combination loperamide plus biofeedback therapy was not different from that of women randomized to treatment with loperamide or biofeedback alone. Responders had greater improvement in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores than nonresponders (-0.4; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.3 vs -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to -0.0, P < .01, mean difference, 0.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.4).ConclusionChange in constipation symptoms following treatment of fecal incontinence in women are small and are not significantly different between groups. Loperamide treatment for fecal incontinence does not worsen constipation symptoms among women with normal consistency stool. Women with clinically significant improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms report greater improvement in constipation symptoms.

Dataset Information

Electrical stimulation and biofeedback for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic review.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key messages

Publications

Electrical stimulation and biofeedback for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets