Lack of benefit of laxatives as adjunctive therapy for functional nonretentive fecal soiling in children. Biofeedback training in treatment of childhood constipation: a randomised controlled study. Biofeedback training for patients with myelomeningocele and fecal incontinence. Randomised controlled trial of biofeedback training in persistent encopresis with anismus. Randomised trial of biofeedback training for encopresis. [Usefulness of biofeedback treatment in children with chronic functional constipation]. Efficiency of biofeedback therapy for chronic constipation in children. A randomized-controlled trial comparing an educational intervention alone vs education and biofeedback in the management of faecal incontinence in women. Modulation of abnormal defecation dynamics by biofeedback treatment in chronically constipated children with encopresis. A prospective randomized trial comparing four biofeedback techniques for patients with faecal incontinence. Biofeedback treatment of fecal incontinence in geriatric patients. A prospective, randomized study comparing the effect of augmented biofeedback with sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence after obstetric trauma. Randomized controlled trial shows biofeedback to be superior to pelvic floor exercises for fecal incontinence. Behavioral therapy for childhood constipation: a randomized, controlled trial. Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback for fecal incontinence. A components analysis of biofeedback in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Assessment of the effectiveness of biofeedback in children with dyssynergic defecation and recalcitrant constipation/encopresis: does home biofeedback improve long-term outcomes. The effect of anorectal manometry on the outcome of treatment in severe childhood constipation: a randomized, controlled trial. Investigation of mode of action of biofeedback in treatment of fecal incontinence.
To determine whether the combination of laxative treatment and biofeedback therapy (BF) is more effective for management of functional nonretentive fecal soiling than biofeedback therapy alone.
                In a prospective nonblinded study, 48 children were randomized in 2 groups: treatment with oral laxatives (LAX) and 5 sessions of BF (BF + LAX) or 5 sessions of BF alone (BF) during a treatment intervention period of 7 weeks. Biofeedback was performed with perfused manometry catheters and rectal balloon distension. Training focused on awareness of balloon distension and instruction in correct defecation dynamics. Successful treatment was defined as <1 encopresis episode per 2 weeks.
                At the end of the intervention period, the number of encopresis episodes was significantly decreased in both groups: from 7 (2 to 24) to 2 (0 to 17) in the BF group and from 7 (3 to 25) to 2 (0 to 14) in the BF + LAX group. However, children given BF alone had significantly higher success rates than children treated with BF and additional oral laxatives (44% to 11%).
                There is no additional effect of laxative treatment in functional nonretentive fecal soiling. Children treated with BF in combination with laxatives showed a significantly lower success percentage compared with those treated with BF alone. These results suggest that children with functional nonretentive fecal soiling should be treated differently from children with constipation and encopresis. Because abnormal defaecation dynamics, which can be modified by biofeedback, are considered to be the underlying problem in constipation, biofeedback training may be a useful treatment for constipation. This treatment has mainly been studied in uncontrolled trials. We evaluated defaecation dynamics and clinical outcome in chronically constipated children in a randomised study comparing conventional treatment and conventional treatment with biofeedback training.
                Patients, 5 to 16 years old, were referred to the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam by general practitioners, school doctors, paediatricians, and psychiatrists. They had to fulfil at least two of four criteria for paediatric constipation and were included if they had been treated medically for at least one month before randomisation. Patients had a medical history, abdominal and rectal examination, and anorectal manometry at the start and end of the 6-week intervention period. The conventional group received laxative treatment with additional dietary advice, toilet training, and maintenance of a diary of bowel habits. The biofeedback group received the same conventional treatment and additionally five biofeedback training sessions. During the first 3 weeks, patients visited the outpatient clinic weekly; two subsequent visits were twice monthly.
                94 patients were randomised to conventional treatment (CT) and 98 to conventional treatment with additional biofeedback training (CT+BF). Normal defaecation dynamics increased in the CT group from 41% to 52% (not significant) and in the CT+BF group from 38% to 86% (p = 0.001). At 6 weeks, more patients in the CT+BF group showed normal defaecation dynamics, compared to the CT group (p < 0.001). This result was unaltered by controlling for baseline status in a logistic regression model. At 1 year, successful treatment (defaecation frequency > or = 3/week, soiling and/or encopresis < 2/month, and no laxatives) was accomplished in 59% of the CT and 50% of the CT+BF group (p = 0.24). The results were maintained after 1 1/2 years follow-up. No association was found between achievement of normal defaecation dynamics and clinical outcome.
                Additional biofeedback training compared to conventional therapy did not result in higher success rates in chronically constipated children. Furthermore, achievement of normal defaecation dynamics was not associated with success: abnormal defaecation dynamics seem not to play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of childhood constipation. Intensive conventional laxative treatment should remain the first choice in chronically constipated children. This study evaluated the efficacy of biofeedback training for fecal in continence in patients with myelomeningocele. 12 patients were randomized to receive conventional treatment alone, or in conjunction with biofeedback. Anorectal manometric functions were evaluated before and after treatment, six and 12 months later. 16 control children were also studied. Three of eight patients in the biofeedback group and three of the four given conventional treatment alone reported greater than or equal to 75 per cent improvement in frequency of soiling 12 months later. Biofeedback training did not improve anal squeeze, rectal sensation or continence of rectal infused saline. The number of patients who improved in both treatment groups was not different. Paradoxical external anal sphincter contraction during attempted defecation (anismus) is thought to be an important contributor to chronic faecal retention and encopresis in children. Biofeedback training can be used to teach children to abolish this abnormal contraction.
                A randomised controlled trial in medical treatment resistant and/or treatment dependent children with anismus using surface electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback training to determine whether such training produces sustained faecal continence. Up to four sessions of biofeedback training were conducted at weekly intervals for each patient. Anorectal manometry was performed before randomisation and six months later. Parents of patients completed the "child behaviour checklist" (CBCL) before randomisation and at follow up.
                Sixty eight children underwent anorectal manometry and EMG. Of these, 29 had anismus (ages 4-14 years) and were randomised to either EMG biofeedback training and conventional medical treatment (BFT) (n = 14) or to conventional medical treatment alone (n = 15). All but one child were able to learn relaxation of the external anal sphincter on attempted defecation. At six months' follow up, laxative free remission had been sustained in two of 14 patients in the BFT group and in two of 15 controls (95% confidence interval (CI) on difference, -24% to 26%). Remission or improvement occurred in four of 14 patients in the BFT group and six of 15 controls (95% CI on difference, -46% to 23%). Of subjects available for repeat anorectal manometry and EMG at six months, six of 13 in the BFT group still demonstrated anismus v 11 of 13 controls (95% CI on difference, -75% to -1%). Of the four patients in full remission at six months, only one (in the BFT group) did not exhibit anismus. Rectal hyposensitivity was not associated with remission or improvement in either of the groups. Mean CBCL total behaviour problem scores were not significantly different between the BFT and control groups, but there was a significant improvement in CBCL school scale scores in the BFT group, and this improvement was significantly greater than that seen in the control group.
                The result of this study, together with those reported in other controlled trials, argues against using biofeedback training in children with encopresis. To evaluate biofeedback training in children with encopresis and the effect on psychosocial function.
                Prospective controlled randomised study. PATIENT INTERVENTIONS: A multimodal treatment of six weeks. Children were randomised into two groups. Each group received dietary and toilet advice, enemas, oral laxatives, and anorectal manometry. One group also received five biofeedback training sessions.
                Successful treatment was defined as less than two episodes of encopresis, regular bowel movements, and no laxatives. Psychosocial function after treatment was assessed using the Child Behaviour Checklist.
                Children given laxatives and biofeedback training had higher success rates than those who received laxatives alone (39% v 19%) at the end of the intervention period. At 12 and 18 months, however, approximately 50% of children in each group were successfully treated. Abnormal behaviour scores were initially observed in 35% of children. Most children had improved behaviour scores six months after treatment. Children with an initial abnormal behaviour score who were successfully treated had a significant improvement in their behavioural profiles.
                Biofeedback training had no additional effect on the success rate or behaviour scores. Psychosocial problems are present in a subgroup of children with encopresis. The relation between successful treatment and improvement in behavioural function supports the idea that encopresis has an aetiological role in the occurrence and maintenance of behavioural problems in children with encopresis. About 2/3 of constipated children present anal-rectal dyssynergy (ARD) with paradoxical contraction of the external anal sphincter (EAS) during defecation.
                The aim of our study was to answer the question whether additional treatment with biofeedback training (BF) is more effective than traditional treatment. MATERIALS, METHODS: We assessed chronically constipated children who fulfilled the criteria of ARD: recto-sigmoid transit time in Hinton's test with radio-paque markers at least 28.8 h, paradoxical EAS contraction during defecation trials (anorectal manometry). The study included 22 constipated children (16 boys and 6 girls), aged 5 to 14 years (mean 8.1 +/- SD 2.8). Children were randomly divided in two groups. In group I at the start of the study children had four day-by-day sessions of BF training based on the anorectal manometry and the surface EMG. Children from group II received only traditional treatment. The follow-up was 6 months. Improvement was estimated based on manometric data, number and quality of stools.
                In the group I after one month, more manometric parameters, significantly improved as compared to the II group. During the observation period the number of stools increased and their quality improved in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the above mentioned symptoms.
                Treatment with BF can improve rectal sensation and particularly defecation dynamics, faster than the traditional method. There is no significant effect of additional BF treatment on such objective symptoms as the number and quality of stools. Chronic constipation is a common disorder in childhood. The underlying mechanisms responsible for chronic constipation remain unknown. Conventional methods of treatment often fail to produce satisfactory results. Favorable effects of biofeedback treatment for constipation have been suggested, however, with variable results reported in the literature. The main aim of the study was to evaluate biofeedback versus conventional therapeutic protocol in the treatment of chronic constipation over a short period of time (3 months). Forty-nine children with chronic idiopathic constipation, 24 allocated to conventional and 25 to biofeedback therapy were included in the study. Thorough history data on bowel function and symptoms, anorectal status and manometric testing were collected before and after treatment. Follow up consisted of a structured interview. Mean age was 94 and 92 months in the children treated by the conventional and biofeedback method, respectively. The initial prevalence of abnormal defecation dynamics was 58% and 56% in the group children allocated to conventional and biofeedback therapy, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. After the treatment, the values of rectal sensation threshold, critical volume, and recto-anal inhibitory reflex volume were significantly higher, and the prevalence of abnormal defecation dynamics was significantly lower in the group on biofeedback therapy. Biofeedback is an effective method of treatment for chronic constipation in children in short term. Therapeutic results are especially favorable in the recovery of abnormal anorectal dynamics and manometric parameters. There is no clear evidence for long-term benefits of biofeedback therapy. Biofeedback (BF) training is an accepted therapy in the treatment of faecal incontinence (FI) despite a paucity of data demonstrating benefit. This study aims to determine whether BF has any specific effect above and beyond an educational intervention. Twenty-three women with regular and frequent idiopathic FI were randomized to education and pelvic exercise vs education and BF therapy. Complete data is available for 18 women. Overall, 61% of participants demonstrated a complete response. There was no difference in response rate between treatment arms. Women with FI demonstrate a good response to treatment with education and exercise and education plus BF thus questioning the specific effect of BF. To determine whether outcome in chronically constipated and encopretic children with abnormal defecation dynamics could be improved with biofeedback training, we randomly assigned patients, 5 to 16 years of age, to receive conventional treatment alone (n = 19) or conventional plus biofeedback treatment (n = 22) and evaluated physiologic outcome at 7 months and clinical outcome at 7 and 12 months. Eighty-six percent of patients learned normal defecation dynamics with up to six biofeedback sessions. At 7 months, 13% of conventionally treated and 77% of biofeedback-treated patients had normal defecation dynamics (p less than 0.01); one conventionally treated (5%) and 12 biofeedback-treated patients (55%) had recovered (p less than 0.01). Learning normal defecation dynamics was correlated with clinical recovery (p less than 0.01). At 7 months, 11% of patients with normal defecation dynamics after biofeedback treatment had abnormal defecation dynamics, and 71% of the biofeedback-treated patients with normal defecation dynamics recovered. At 12 months, 16% of conventionally treated and 50% of biofeedback-treated patients had recovered (p less than 0.05). Balloon defecation did not improve significantly in those who learned normal defecation dynamics. Therefore the ability to defecate balloons is apparently not dependent on the normal function of the external and sphincter and pelvic floor muscles alone. Biofeedback treatment is complementary to a good conventional therapeutic regimen in patients with abnormal defecation dynamics. The aim of this study was to compare four methods of biofeedback therapy for patients with faecal incontinence (FI).
                All patients with FI who were ineligible for surgical management were prospectively randomized using a computer generated randomization method into one of four protocols: 1, out-patient intra-anal electromyographic biofeedback training (EMG); 2, EMG plus intrarectal balloon training (BT); 3, EMG plus a home trainer (HT); and 4, EMG, BT and HT. All patients received weekly, 1 h, out-patient biofeedback training. Success for patients with FI was measured by a reduction in incontinent episodes (days/week). In all instances, patients maintained a daily log in which documentation was recorded regarding each bowel evacuation.
                Forty patients were randomized into one of the four groups. Six patients withdrew after one session and were not included in the analysis. Therefore, 34 patients (23 female and 11 male) with a mean incontinence score of 12 (range 7-14) were randomized to one of the four groups (n=8, 8, 8, and 10, respectively). There was a statistically significant reduction in incontinent episodes for all groups. However, there were no significant differences in treatment outcome found in comparisons among the four groups.
                Biofeedback therapy significantly improves FI. Moreover, EMG training was as effective alone as was the addition of HT, BT or both for the treatment of FI. Eighteen fecally incontinent geriatric patients were first treated for constipation as a possible cause of incontinence, and the 13 who remained incontinent were provided sphincter biofeedback training. Half the patients were instructed to perform 50 sphincter exercises per day for a four-week period prior to the start of biofeedback training to determine whether such exercises would improve bowel control in the absence of biofeedback training. Sphincter exercises alone did not produce clinical improvements and did not significantly increase the strength of sphincter contractions. Biofeedback training did significantly augment sphincter strength and was associated with greater than 75 per cent decreases in incontinence for 10 (77 per cent) of the patients. Improvements were maintained in 60 per cent at six months and in 42 per cent at one year. Thus biofeedback training appears to be of specific value in the treatment of fecal incontinence in geriatric patients. This study was designed to compare prospectively the effects of augmented biofeedback with those of sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence and anorectal manometry after obstetric trauma.
                A consecutive cohort of 40 females with impaired fecal continence after obstetric anal sphincter injury were recruited from a dedicated perineal clinic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either augmented biofeedback or sensory biofeedback alone. All patients were assessed before and after twelve weeks of biofeedback training, using a fecal continence questionnaire and anorectal manometry.
                Thirty-nine of 40 females recruited completed the study. Continence scores improved in both treatment groups, but the results were better for those who received augmented biofeedback. Anorectal manometry was unchanged by sensory biofeedback, whereas anal resting and squeeze pressures increased with augmented biofeedback. No change in anal vector symmetry was observed in either group.
                Augmented biofeedback training is superior to sensory biofeedback alone in the treatment of impaired fecal continence after obstetric trauma. This study aimed to compare manometric biofeedback with pelvic floor exercises for the treatment of fecal incontinence in a randomized controlled trial controlling for nonspecific treatment effects.
                After excluding patients who were adequately treated with medication, education, and behavioral strategies (21%), 108 patients (83 females; average age, 59.6 years) underwent either pelvic floor exercises alone (n = 63) or manometric biofeedback plus pelvic floor exercises (n = 45). Patients in both groups were taught behavioral strategies to avoid incontinence.
                At three-month follow-up, biofeedback patients had significantly greater reductions on the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (P = 0.01) and fewer days with fecal incontinence (P = 0.083). Biofeedback training increased anal canal squeeze pressure more than pelvic floor exercises did (P = 0.014) and with less abdominal tension during squeeze (P = 0.001). Three months after training 76% of patients treated with biofeedback vs. 41% patients treated with pelvic floor exercises (chi-squared = 12.5, P < 0.001) reported adequate relief. Before treatment, the groups did not differ on demographic, physiologic, or psychologic variables, symptom severity, duration of illness, quality-of-life impact, or expectation of benefit. At 12-month follow-up, biofeedback patients continued to show significantly greater reduction in Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores (F = 4.83, P = 0.03), and more patients continued to report adequate relief (chi-squared = 3.64, P = 0.056).
                This investigation provides definitive support for the efficacy of biofeedback. Biofeedback training resulted in greater reductions in fecal incontinence severity and days with fecal incontinence. Biofeedback was also more effective than pelvic floor exercises alone in producing adequate relief of fecal incontinence symptoms in patients for whom conservative medical management had failed. It has been suggested that the addition of behavioral interventions to laxative therapy improves continence in children with functional fecal incontinence associated with constipation. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of behavioral therapy with laxatives compared with conventional treatment in treating functional constipation in childhood.
                In this randomized, controlled trial conducted in a tertiary hospital in The Netherlands, 134 children aged 4 to 18 years with functional constipation were randomly assigned to 22 weeks (12 visits) of either behavioral therapy or conventional treatment. Primary outcomes were defecation frequency, fecal incontinence frequency, and success rate. Success was defined as defecation frequency of > or = 3 times per week and fecal incontinence frequency of < or = 1 times per 2 weeks irrespective of laxative use. Secondary outcomes were stool-withholding behavior and behavior problems. Outcomes were evaluated at the end of treatment and at 6-months follow-up. All of the analyses were done by intention to treat.
                Defecation frequency was significantly higher for conventional treatment. Fecal incontinence frequency showed no difference between treatments. After 22 weeks, success rates did not differ between conventional treatment and behavioral therapy (respectively, 62.3% and 51.5%), nor did it differ at 6 months of follow-up (respectively, 57.3% and 42.3%). The proportion of children withholding stools was not different between interventions. At follow-up, the proportion of children with behavior problems was significantly smaller for behavioral therapy (11.7% vs 29.2%).
                Behavioral therapy with laxatives has no advantage over conventional treatment in treating childhood constipation. However, when behavior problems are present, behavioral therapy or referral to mental health services should be considered. Behavioral treatment (biofeedback) has been reported to improve fecal incontinence but has not been compared with standard care.
                A total of 171 patients with fecal incontinence were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: (1) standard care (advice); (2) advice plus instruction on sphincter exercises; (3) hospital-based computer-assisted sphincter pressure biofeedback; and (4) hospital biofeedback plus the use of a home electromyelogram biofeedback device. Outcome measures included diary, symptom questionnaire, continence score, patient's rating of change, quality of life (short-form 36 and disease specific), psychologic status (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and anal manometry.
                Biofeedback yielded no greater benefit than standard care with advice (53% improved in group 3 vs. 54% in group 1). There was no difference between the groups on any of the following measures: episodes of incontinence decreased from a median of 2 to 0 per week (P < 0.001). Continence score (worst = 20) decreased from a median of 11 to 8 (P < 0.001). Disease-specific quality of life, short-form 36 (vitality, social functioning, and mental health), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale all significantly improved. Patients improved resting, squeeze, and sustained squeeze pressures (all P < 0.002). These improvements were largely maintained 1 year after finishing treatment.
                Conservative therapy for fecal incontinence improves continence, quality of life, psychologic well-being, and anal sphincter function. Benefit is maintained in the medium term. Neither pelvic floor exercises nor biofeedback was superior to standard care supplemented by advice and education. Fecal incontinence is a socially disabling symptom for which rectosphincteric biofeedback has been reported to be dramatically effective. The most commonly employed biofeedback procedure incorporates three separate and potentially effective components: exercise of the external sphincter muscle, training in discrimination of rectal sensations, and training synchrony of the internal and external sphincter responses. This paper reports the results of single case experiments employed with eight incontinent patients to examine the contributions of each of these components. All eight patients improved, but only one required the biofeedback procedure as it was originally described. Three responded to sensory discrimination training, one to exercise training, and one to the training of synchronous sphincteric responses; three recovered independently of the effects of biofeedback. Despite the achievement of continence, the rectosphincteric reflexes following treatment continued to be abnormal in every case. These findings suggest that the character of the external sphincter response to rectal distension is an unreliable index of sphincter function and that exercise and sensory discrimination training procedures are effective for some cases of fecal incontinence. The purpose of this study was to determine whether biofeedback benefits children with dyssynergic defecation and constipation/encopresis, and whether home biofeedback improves long-term outcomes. Thirty-six patients with chronic constipation who had failed at least 6 months of conventional treatment and demonstrated dyssynergic defecation at anorectal manometry were randomized to biofeedback in the laboratory alone (group 1, n=24) or in the laboratory and at home (group 2, n=12) and followed up at 2, 4, and a mean of 44 months. Thirty patients were available for long-term follow-up. Bowel movements increased in all from a mean of 1.4/week to 5.1, 5.8, and 5.1 per week at 2 months, 4 months, and long-term, respectively (p < or = 0.001). Soiling decreased in all from a mean of 5.5/week to 0.6, 0.1, and 1 per week at 2 months, 4 months, and long-term, respectively (p < or = 0.001). Laxative use decreased from a mean of 4.1 days/week to 0.6, 0.3, and 0.7 per week at 2 months, 4 months, and long-term, respectively (p < or = 0.001). Twenty-seven of 30 parents ranked their satisfaction a mean of 2.2 (range 1-excellent to 3-good). There were no significant differences in outcomes between the laboratory alone group and the laboratory plus home group. Biofeedback is beneficial for some children with chronic constipation and dyssynergic defecation. Supplemental home biofeedback does not improve long-term outcomes. Approximately 50% of constipated children contract rather than relax the external sphincter complex during a defecation attempt. Although biofeedback training (BF) is able to change this defecation behavior, there is no additional effect of BF to conventional treatment (CT) on clinical outcome compared with CT alone. It has been postulated that the absence of a significant difference between these 2 treatment options might be because of a therapeutic, "demystifying" effect of performing anorectal manometry in conventionally treated children, necessary to obtain basal manometric data. The objective of this prospective, controlled, randomized study was to evaluate the effect of CT with 2 anorectal manometry sessions compared with CT alone (dietary advice, diary, toilet training, oral laxatives, and enemas) on clinical outcome.
                A total of 212 constipated children (143 boys) who were visiting a referral pediatric gastroenterologic practice were randomized prospectively to CT alone (115 patients) or to CT combined with 2 manometry sessions (CTM; 97 patients). Patients were included in the study when they fulfilled at least 2 of the 4 following criteria: stool frequency fewer than 3 per week, 2 or more soiling and/or encopresis episodes per week, periodic passage of very large amounts of stool every 7 to 30 days, or a palpable rectal or abdominal fecal mass. CT comprises dietary advice, a daily diary, toilet training, and oral laxative treatment preceded by rectal disimpaction with enemas on 3 consecutive days. During both manometries, the child and the parent could watch the tracing on the computer screen. No explanation was given to either the child or the parents during the procedure. When the procedure was finished, the tracings were clarified. Successful treatment was defined as a defecation frequency of 3 or more per week and fewer than 1 soiling/encopresis episode per 2 weeks and no use of laxatives.
                Only 4 and 2 children from the CT and CTM groups showed no soiling and/or encopresis, whereas 76% and 65%, respectively, reported the periodic passage of large stools. In 26% and 30% of the patients, a rectal scybalum was found on physical examination. The success rates at 6, 26, 52, and 104 weeks' follow-up were 4%, 24%, 32%, and 43% and 7%, 22%, 30%, and 35% in the CT and CTM group, respectively. No significant difference in success percentage was observed between the 2 groups at any time of follow-up with relative risks (CT/CTM) and 95% confidence intervals, respectively, of 0.55 (0.16-1.89), 1.13 (0.67-1.89), 1.07 (0.69-1.65), and 1.23 (0.81-1.85). A significant increase in defecation frequency was observed between the first (intake) and second visits, which was sustained at all subsequent visits and stages of follow-up in both groups (not significant). Also in relation to the first visit, a significant decrease in encopresis episodes was shown and a further slow but significant decrease at 52 weeks of follow-up in both groups. The manometric data obtained from the CTM group showed a low percentage of children with normal defecation dynamics, namely 28%, which (significantly) increased to 38% at the last manometry.
                Anorectal manometry combined with CT compared with CT alone did not result in higher success rates in chronically constipated children. Therefore, anorectal manometry has no additional demystifying or educational effect on clinical outcome in chronically constipated children. This observation together with the observation in the current and previous studies that no correlation was found between (achievement of) normal defecation dynamics and success and that no relation was observed between volume of urge or critical volume and success leaves no diagnostic or therapeutic role for anorectal manometry in chronic constipated children, except its use as a diagnostic test to exclude Hirschsprung's disease. A simple CT is successful in 30% of severely constipated children who are referred to a tertiary hospital, underscoring the importance of long-lasting and adequate laxative treatment. A study was carried out in 25 incontinent patients to evaluate some of the factors thought to be responsible for the success of retraining for fecal incontinence. Subjects were initially allocated to one of two groups; one group was trained to perceive small rectal volumes (active retraining), the other group carried out the same maneuvers but were not given any information or instruction. Active sensory retraining reduced the sensory threshold from 32 +/- 8 to 7 +/- 2 ml (P less than 0.001), corrected any sensory delay that was present (P less than 0.004), and reduced the frequency of incontinence from 5 +/- 1 to 1 +/- 1 episodes per week (P less than 0.01). Sham retraining caused a modest reduction in the sensory threshold (from 29 +/- 9 to 20 +/- 8; P less than 0.05) but did not significantly reduce the frequency of incontinence. Subsequent strength and coordination training did not significantly improve continence, although at the end of the study, 50% of patients had no incontinent episodes at all and 76% of patients had reduced the frequency of incontinence episodes by more than 75%. This improvement in continence was not associated with any change in sphincter pressures or in the continence to rectally infused saline but was associated with significant improvements in rectal sensation. The functional improvement was sustained over a period of two years in 16 of the 22 patients available for follow-up. In conclusion, the results support the use of retraining in the management of fecal incontinence and suggest that retraining may work by enhancing rectal sensitivity and instilling confidence.
There is no evidence that biofeedback training adds any benefit to conventional treatment in the management of functional faecal incontinence in children. There was not enough evidence on which to assess the effects of biofeedback for the management of organic faecal incontinence. There is some evidence that behavioural interventions plus laxative therapy, rather than laxative therapy alone, improves continence in children with functional faecal incontinence associated with constipation.