4.3 Article

Electrical Stimulation Therapy in Chronic Functional Constipation: Five Years' Experience in Patients Refractory to Biofeedback Therapy and With Rectal Hyposensitivity

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 366-373

Publisher

KOREAN SOC NEUROGASTERONTEROL & MOTILITY
DOI: 10.5056/jnm.2013.19.3.366

Keywords

Biofeedback; Constipation; Electric stimulation therapy

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI10C2014]
  2. National Research Foundation (NRF)
  3. Korean government (MEST) [2011-0019632]
  4. Asan Institute for Life Sciences [2013-559]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundAims Biofeedback therapy (BFT) can be unsuccessful in constipated patients, even those with pelvic floor dysfunction. Electrical stimulation therapy (EST) has been introduced as a novel therapeutic modality in patients with chronic constipation, especially those who have rectal hyposensitivity. We evaluated the efficacy of EST based on five years' clinical experience. Methods From January 2002 to February 2007, 159 patients underwent EST. After exclusion of 12 drop-outs, 147 (M:F = 61:86, 49 +/- 17 years) finished all treatment sessions. Among them, 88 (M:F = 29: 59, 49 +/- 17 years) were refractory to BFT without rectal hyposensitivity (RH), and 59 (M:F = 32: 27, 54 +/- 17 years) were those with RH. Results The overall response to EST was 59.2% (87/47) by per-protocol analysis. In the EST-responsive group, overall satisfaction improved significantly (from 7.3 +/- 3.0 to 4.3 +/- 2.5, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the response rate was 64.8% (57/88) in patients refractory to BFT without RH, and 50.8 % (30/59) in those with RH. Conclusions EST may have additional therapeutic efficacy in patients who are refractory to BFT. EST may also be effective in patients with RH, including restoration of rectal sensation. Therefore, EST could be considered as an alternative choice in patients refractory to BFT and with or without RH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available