³í¹® »ó¼¼ º¸±â
(PDF file / 7 pages)
View
| Down
Title
Biofeedback Therapy for Patients with Rectocele
Author
Bong Soo Kim, Yong Hee Hwang, Kun Pil Choi
Place of duty
Publicationinfo
Journal of Korean Soc Coloproctol 2001 | Vol.17 No.2 | 69 ~ 75, 7 pages
Keyword
Á÷Àå·ù; º¯ºñ; °ñ¹ÝÃⱸÆó¼â; ´ëÀ幫·ÂÁõ; Rectocele; Constipation; Biofeedback; Anismus; Colonic inertia;
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome and identify predictors of success of biofeedback therapy for rectocele.
Methods: Twenty four female patients (mean age 43.8 years) with rectal emptying difficulties and a rectocele greater than 2 cm at defecography were evaluated beforehand with a standardized questionnaires, immediately after biofeedback therapy,
and
at
follow up. Defecography, manometry, colon transit studies and electrophysiology were also analyzed.
Results: Follow up (mean 7.2; range 2¡17 months) results were evaluated by an independent observer in 20 patients. At the end of biofeedback, 22 (92 percent) patients felt improvement in symptoms, including 13 (54 percent) with symptomatic
relief. At
follow-up, 14 (70 percent) patients felt improvement in symptoms, including 3 (15 percent) with complete relief of symptoms. There was a significant reduction in difficult defecation (from 79 to 29, 40 percent, from pre-biofeedback to
post-biofeedback,
at follow-up respectively; P£¼0.001, P£¼0.05), sensation of incomplete defecation (from 96 to 46, 60 percent; P£¼0.001, P£¼0.005), laxative use (from 54 to 25, 30 percent; P£¼0.05), enema use (from 21 to 0,0 percent; P£¼0.05), anal pain (from 21
to
0, 5
percent; P£¼0.05) and digitation (from 21 to 4, 5 percent). Normal spontaneous bowel movement was significantly increased from 50 percent pre-biofeedback to 83 post-biofeedback (P£¼0.05), 65 percent at follow-up. Abdominal pain (P£¼0.05) and
digitation
(P£¼0.05) related to poor results. High mean squeeze pressure (P£¼0.001) and high maximum squeeze pressure (P£¼0.05) on pre-biofeedback manometry were also related to a poor outcome. Age, duration of symptoms, parity, number of sessions of
biofeedback,
gynecologic surgery history, and rectocele size at defecography had no prognostic value. Anismus and colonic inertia did not influence the outcome of biofeedback.
Conclusions: Biofeedback is an effective treatment option for patients with obstructed defecation due to rectocele.
Á¦ ¸ñ
Á÷Àå·ù ȯÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÇǵå¹é Ä¡·á
Àú ÀÚ
±èºÀ¼ö, Ȳ¿ëÈñ, ÃÖ°ÇÇÊ
¼Ò ¼Ó
±èºÀ¼ö/¼¿ïÀ§»ýº´¿ø ÀϹݿܰú , Ȳ¿ëÈñ/¼¿ïÀ§»ýº´¿ø ÀϹݿܰú , ÃÖ°ÇÇÊ/¼¿ïÀ§»ýº´¿ø ÀϹݿܰú
ÃâÆÇÁ¤º¸
´ëÇÑ´ëÀåÇ×¹®ÇÐȸÁö 2001 | 17±Ç 2È£ 69 ~ 75, 7 pages
Å°¿öµå
Á÷Àå·ù; º¯ºñ; °ñ¹ÝÃⱸÆó¼â; ´ëÀ幫·ÂÁõ; Rectocele; Constipation; Biofeedback; Anismus; Colonic inertia;