Randomized controlled trial shows biofeedback to be superior to pelvic floor exercises for fecal incontinence. A comparison of effectiveness of biofeedback and pelvic muscle exercise treatment of stress incontinence in older community-dwelling women. Biofeedback and pelvic floor exercises for the rehabilitation of urinary stress incontinence. A prospective, randomized study comparing the effect of augmented biofeedback with sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence after obstetric trauma. The effect of home biofeedback training on stress incontinence. Randomized, controlled trial of biofeedback with anal manometry, transanal ultrasound, or pelvic floor retraining with digital guidance alone in the treatment of mild to moderate fecal incontinence. Cues to action: pelvic floor muscle exercise compliance in women with stress urinary incontinence. Biofeedback training for patients with myelomeningocele and fecal incontinence. A randomized-controlled trial comparing an educational intervention alone vs education and biofeedback in the management of faecal incontinence in women.
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. Research using biofeedback as a treatment for sphincteric incontinence began with Kegel's early studies using a perineometer and pelvic muscle exercises demonstrating a 90% improvement in urine loss symptoms. More recent studies using varying combinations of biofeedback and pelvic muscle exercises found symptom reduction rates of 78% to 90%, but these studies lacked the rigor of a "phase three," or randomized controlled clinical trial.
                A randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy of biofeedback for older women for treatment of sphincteric incompetence. One hundred thirty-five community-dwelling women were randomized in a single-blind trial to three groups: biofeedback, pelvic muscle exercise, or control. Incontinent episodes were monitored over 8 weeks of treatment and at 3 and 6 months thereafter.
                The number of incontinent episodes decreased significantly in the biofeedback and pelvic muscle exercise subjects but not in the control subjects for all severity of incontinence frequency subgroups. Improvement was maintained within the moderate and severe symptom subgroups for both treatments for at least 6 months but declined in subjects with mild incontinence frequency. Pelvic muscle activity (EMG) was significantly correlated with decreases in incontinent episodes, and only the biofeedback subjects showed significant improvement in EMGs.
                Biofeedback and pelvic muscle exercises are efficacious for sphincteric incompetence in older women. Benefits are maintained and improvement continues for at least 6 months postintervention. These therapies may be useful before considering invasive treatment. We investigated the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercises or biofeedback for the treatment of urinary stress incontinence (USI). Fifty patients with USI were included in this randomized, controlled, prospective study. Twenty patients were taught PFM exercises via digital palpation and instructed to perform regularly as home program. The second group of 20 patients had PFM exercises via biofeedback three times a week for 2 months. The third group of 10 patients did not have any exercises. The patients were evaluated via pad test, perineometry, digital palpation based PFM strength, incontinence frequency, and visual analog scale based social activity index prior to and 8 weeks after the treatment. The first two groups had significant improvement in USI with respect to the control group (p < 0.001). The rise in PFM strength with perineometry of the biofeedback group was higher than in the digital palpation group after treatment (p < 0.001). PFM exercises are effective for the treatment of USI; the biofeedback method revealed better PFM strength results with respect to digital palpation.
                Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel 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. To compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor training (PFT) with the aid of a home biofeedback device to PFT alone for urodynamic stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women after a 1-year follow-up.
                A randomized study comparing two conservative interventions was conducted in an outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Thirty-five consecutive women were randomized to either the PFT with home biofeedback group or the PFT alone group. The intensive training period lasted 12 weeks. After 1 year, 33 women could be evaluated according to the protocol. At the 1-year visit pelvic floor muscle activity was measured and the need for surgical intervention was evaluated. Logistic multivariate analysis was used to predict response to the PFT.
                In the home biofeedback training group 11/16 (68.8%) avoided surgery vs. 10/19 (52.6%) in the PFT alone group. The difference was not statistically significant. In the nonoperated home biofeedback group the increase in pelvic floor muscle activity (p = 0.005 in supine, p = 0.005 in standing) and the decrease in leakage index (p = 0.05) was significant after 12 weeks and pelvic floor activity remained constant. By contrast, in the nonoperated PFT group the increase in pelvic floor muscle activity after 12 weeks predicted a good result for conservative treatment.
                This randomized controlled trial suggests that the home biofeedback method in PFT has a good success rate of 68.8%. The change achieved in leakage index after 12 weeks of training predicted an effective outcome for conservative treatment. A prospective, three-armed, randomized, controlled trial was performed to assess whether pelvic floor exercises with biofeedback using anal manometry or transanal ultrasound are superior to pelvic floor exercises with feedback from digital examination alone in terms of continence, quality of life, physiologic sphincter strength, and compliance. Its secondary objectives were to assess whether there are any differences in these outcomes between biofeedback with transanal ultrasound vs. anal manometry and to correlate the physiologic measures with clinical outcome.
                One hundred twenty patients with mild to moderate fecal incontinence were randomized into one of three treatment groups: biofeedback with anal manometry, biofeedback with transanal ultrasound, or pelvic floor exercises with feedback from digital examination alone. Commencing one week after an initial 45-minute assessment session, patients attended monthly treatments for a total of five sessions. Each session lasted 30 minutes and involved sphincter exercises with biofeedback that involved instrumentation or digital examination alone, and patients were encouraged to perform identical exercises twice per day between outpatient visits.
                One hundred two patients (85 percent) completed the four-month treatment program. Across all treatment allocations, patients experienced modest but highly significant improvements in all nine outcome measures during treatment, with 70 percent of all patients perceiving improvement in symptom severity and 69 percent of patients reporting improved quality of life. With the possible exception of isotonic fatigue time, there were no significant differences between the three treatment groups in compliance, physiologic sphincter strength, and clinical or quality-of-life measures. Correlations between physiologic measures and clinical outcomes were much stronger with ultrasound-based measures than with manometry.
                Although patients in this study who completed pelvic floor exercises with feedback from digital examination achieved no additional benefit from biofeedback and measurement with transanal ultrasound or manometry, it may be that the guidance received through digital examination alone offered patients in the pelvic floor exercise group an effective biofeedback mechanism. Contrary to our hypothesis, the use of transanal ultrasound offered no benefit over manometry, but the use of ultrasound for isotonic fatigue time and isometric fatigue contractions provided potentially important physiologic measures that require further study. This study has confirmed, through a large sample of patients, that pelvic floor retraining programs are an effective treatment for improving physiologic, clinical, and quality-of-life parameters in the short term. Pelvic floor muscle exercises are recommended as an initial treatment to women with stress urinary incontinence. This treatment is often unsuccessful because of patient noncompliance. A post-test, experimental control group design was used to examine Pender's (1992) concept of an external cue to action, an audiocassette tape, to enhance patient compliance to pelvic floor exercises. Eighty-six women with urodynamically evaluated stress urinary incontinence participated through a Pelvic Floor Exercise Unit at a large teaching hospital. Patients received biofeedback training and written information to reinforce pelvic floor muscle exercises during a 45-min appointment with a nurse. Patients were instructed to perform the exercises for 10 min twice daily. Forty-three women randomly assigned to an experimental group received an audiocassette tape. Four to 6 weeks later all patients completed a researcher-developed questionnaire that was validity and reliability tested assessing pelvic floor exercise compliance. The 43 patients (100%) who received the audiocassette tape reported compliance with "routine" exercises. Twenty-two of 34 patients (65%) who did not receive the tape were compliant (P = 0.0003). Thirty-four of 41 patients (83%) who received the tape reported exercise compliance twice a day, while 4 of 34 patients (12%) in the control group were similarly compliant (P = 0.0000). The findings suggest adding an audiocassette tape to a pelvic floor exercise program enhances patient compliance for incontinent women compared to verbal and written instruction combined with biofeedback. 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. 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.
Feedback or biofeedback may provide benefit in addition to pelvic floor muscle training in women with urinary incontinence. However, further research is needed to differentiate whether it is the feedback or biofeedback that causes the beneficial effect or some other difference between the trial arms (such as more contact with health professionals).