Skip to main content
Log in

Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry can predict response to biofeedback therapy in defecation disorders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Biofeedback therapy (BT) is a simple and effective technique for managing outlet constipation and fecal incontinence. Several clinical factors are known to predict BT response, but a 50% failure rate persists. Better selection of BT responsive patients is required. We aimed to determine whether the defecation disorder type per high-resolution manometry (HRM) was predictive of BT response.

Methods

We analyzed clinical, manometric, and ultrasound endoscopic data from patients who underwent BT in our department between January 2015 and January 2016. Patients were classified into four groups per the following defecation disorder classification criteria: rectal pressure > 40 mmHg and anal paradoxical contraction (type I); rectal pressure < 40 mmHg and anal paradoxical contraction (type II); rectal pressure > 40 mmHg and incomplete anal relaxation (type III); and rectal pressure < 40 mmHg and incomplete anal relaxation (type IV). An experienced single operator conducted ten weekly 20-min sessions. Efficacy was evaluated with the visual analog scale.

Results

Of 92 patients, 47 (50.5%) responded to BT. Type IV and type II defecation disorders were predictive of success (p = 0.03) (OR = 5.03 [1.02; 24.92]) and failure (p = 0.05) (OR = 0.41 [0.17; 0.99]), respectively. The KESS score severity before BT (p = 0.03) (OR = 0.9 [0.81; 0.99]) was also predictive of failure.

Conclusion

The manometry types identified according to the defecation disorder classification criteria were predictive of BT response. Our data confirm the role of three-dimensional HRM in the therapeutic management of anorectal functional disorders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D’Hoore A, Penninckx F (2003) Obstructed defecation. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 5(4):280–287

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bharucha AE, Dunivan G, Goode PS, Lukacz ES, Markland AD, Matthews CA, Mott L, Rogers RG, Zinsmeister AR, Whitehead WE, Rao SSC, Hamilton FA (2015) Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and classification of fecal incontinence: state of the science summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) workshop. Am J Gastroenterol 110(1):127–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rao SSC (2010) Advances in diagnostic assessment of fecal incontinence and dyssynergic defecation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 8(11):910–919

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benezech A, Bouvier M, Grimaud J-C, Baumstarck K, Vitton V (2014) Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry and diagnosis of excessive perineal descent: a comparative pilot study with defaecography. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 16(5):O170–O175

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vitton V, Ben Hadj Amor W, Baumstarck K, Behr M, Bouvier M, Grimaud J-C (2013) Comparison of three-dimensional high-resolution manometry and endoanal ultrasound in the diagnosis of anal sphincter defects. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 15(10):e607–e611

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Benezech A, Cappiello M, Baumstarck K, Grimaud JC, Bouvier M, Vitton V (2017) Rectal intussusception: can high resolution three-dimensional ano-rectal manometry compete with conventional defecography? Neurogastroenterol Motil 29(4)

  7. Rao SSC, Mudipalli RS, Stessman M, Zimmerman B (2004) Investigation of the utility of colorectal function tests and Rome II criteria in dyssynergic defecation (Anismus). Neurogastroenterol Motil Off J Eur Gastrointest Motil Soc 16(5):589–596

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee YY, Erdogan A, Rao SSC (2013) High resolution and high definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography: diagnostic advance or a new kid on the block? Curr Gastroenterol Rep 15(12):360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Woodward S, Norton C, Chiarelli P (2014). Biofeedback for treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev;(3):CD008486

  10. Shim LSE, Jones M, Prott GM, Morris LI, Kellow JE, Malcolm A (2011) Predictors of outcome of anorectal biofeedback therapy in patients with constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 33(11):1245–1251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilliland R, Heymen S, Altomare DF, Park UC, Vickers D, Wexner SD (1997) Outcome and predictors of success of biofeedback for constipation. Br J Surg 84(8):1123–1126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park DH, Myung S-J, Yoon I-J, Kwon O-R, Ko J-E, Chang H-S et al (2003) Clinical factors associated with response to biofeedback therapy for patients with chronic constipation. Korean J Gastroenterol Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe Chi 42(4):289–296

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chiarioni G, Salandini L, Whitehead WE (2005) Biofeedback benefits only patients with outlet dysfunction, not patients with isolated slow transit constipation. Gastroenterology 129:86–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Byrne CM, Solomon MJ, Young JM, Rex J, Merlino CL (2007) Biofeedback for fecal incontinence: short-term outcomes of 513 consecutive patients and predictors of successful treatment. Dis Colon Rectum 50(4):417–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shin JK, Cheon JH, Kim ES, Yoon JY, Lee JH, Jeon SM, Bok HJ, Park JJ, Moon CM, Hong SP, Lee YC, Kim WH (2010) Predictive capability of anorectal physiologic tests for unfavorable outcomes following biofeedback therapy in dyssynergic defecation. J Korean Med Sci 25(7):1060–1065

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernández-Fraga X, Azpiroz F, Aparici A, Casaus M, Malagelada J-R (2003) Predictors of response to biofeedback treatment in anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 46(9):1218–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knowles CH, Scott SM, Legg PE, Allison ME, Lunniss PJ (2002) Level of classification performance of KESS (symptom scoring system for constipation) validated in a prospective series of 105 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 45(6):842–843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):77–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee TH, Bharucha AE (2016) How to perform and interpret a high-resolution anorectal manometry test. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 22(1):46–59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Raja S, Okeke FC, Stein EM, Dhalla S, Nandwani M, Lynch KL, Gyawali CP, Clarke JO (2017) Three-dimensional anorectal manometry enhances diagnostic gain by detecting sphincter defects and puborectalis pressure. Dig Dis Sci 62(12):3536–3541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grossi U, Carrington EV, Bharucha AE, Horrocks EJ, Scott SM, Knowles CH (2016) Diagnostic accuracy study of anorectal manometry for diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation. Gut 65(3):447–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Pulvirenti d’Urso A (2007) A prospective evaluation of occult disorders in obstructed defecation using the ‘iceberg diagram’. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 9(5):452–456

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Leroi AM, Bernier C, Watier A, Hémond M, Goupil G, Black R, Denis P, Devroede G (1995) Prevalence of sexual abuse among patients with functional disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Int J Color Dis 10(4):200–206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Faried M, El Nakeeb A, Youssef M, Omar W, El Monem HA (2010) Comparative study between surgical and non-surgical treatment of anismus in patients with symptoms of obstructed defecation: a prospective randomized study. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 14(8):1235–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Altomare DF, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M, Dodi G, Ghiselli R, Piloni V (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel 10(1):84–88

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rao SSC, Seaton K, Miller M, Brown K, Nygaard I, Stumbo P et al (2007) Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback, sham feedback, and standard therapy for dyssynergic defecation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 5(3):331–338

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronique Vitton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

VV, CA, and MB have been consultants for Medtronic.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrianjafy, C., Luciano, L., Loundou, A. et al. Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry can predict response to biofeedback therapy in defecation disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis 34, 1131–1140 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03297-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03297-z

Keywords

Navigation