Biofeedback Versus Bilateral Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Functional Non-retentive Fecal Incontinence
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Fecal Incontinence
- Sponsor
- Cairo University
- Enrollment
- 93
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Incontinence score using St' Mark's (Vaiszey)
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 5 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
Fecal incontinence is one of the most psychological frustrating problems. It occurs in children due to many causes. There is a wide range of non-invasive therapeutic approaches like Kegel exercise, Biofeedback, and posterior tibial nerve stimulation. However, up till now, there are no established guidelines for treatment.
the objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the early effect of Biofeedback therapy versus bilateral transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPNS) as non-invasive methods in the treatment of functional non-retentive fecal incontinence (FNRFI) in children.
Detailed Description
Functional non-retentive fecal incontinence (FNRFI) requires prolonged treatment with a wide range of non-invasive therapeutic approaches like Kegel exercise, Biofeedback, and posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). However, up till now, there are no established guidelines for treatment.1 The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the early effect of Biofeedback therapy versus bilateral transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPTNS) as non-invasive methods in the treatment of (FNRFI) in children. Methodology: The current prospective randomized controlled study included 93 children with FNRFI who were randomly divided and allocated into three groups. Group A treated by conventional methods through dietetic regulation and Kegal exercises. Group B treated by biofeedback therapy while group C received bilateral (TPTNS). Initial manometric findings including resting pressure, squeeze pressure, 1st sensation, 1st urge, and intense urge were recorded and repeated after 3 and 6 months together with incontinence score recorded in using St' Mark's (Varizey) with the primary endpoint of improvement of the incontinence score more than 50%.
Investigators
Olfat Ibrahim Ali
Assistant professor
Cairo University
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •FecaI incontinence
- •Normal defecation frequency,
- •Normal bowel habits and
- •Normal stool consistency
Exclusion Criteria
- •Children who are not cooperative,
- •Children with traumatic sphincter injury,
- •Children with fecal impaction,
- •Children with spinal diseases causing incontinence,
- •Children with anorectal malformation,
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Incontinence score using St' Mark's (Vaiszey)
Time Frame: 3 months after intervention
Questionnaire ranging from zero (indicating complete continence) to 24 (indicating total incontinence).
incontinence score using St' Mark's (Vaiszey)
Time Frame: 6 months after intervention
Questionnaire ranging from zero (indicating complete continence) to 24 (indicating total incontinence).
Secondary Outcomes
- Resting pressure (mm hg)(6 months after intervention)
- First sensation (volume of the balloon by cm water)(6 months after intervention)
- Intense urge (volume of the balloon by cm water)(6 months after intervention)
- First Urge(volume of the balloon by cm water)(6 months after intervention)
- Squeeze pressure (mm hg)(6 months after intervention)