Biofeedback Therapy and Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in the Treatment of Constipation and Fecal Incontinence Are Very Different in Real-World Practice.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Neurogastroenterology and Motility Pub Date : 2026-08-01 DOI:10.1111/nmo.70412

Calvin Joomann Park, Satish Rao, Büşra İnal, Roshini Nadarajah, Tracey Cragg, Michael P Jones, Allison Malcolm

{"title":"Biofeedback Therapy and Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in the Treatment of Constipation and Fecal Incontinence Are Very Different in Real-World Practice.","authors":"Calvin Joomann Park, Satish Rao, Büşra İnal, Roshini Nadarajah, Tracey Cragg, Michael P Jones, Allison Malcolm","doi":"10.1111/nmo.70412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: International guidelines recommend anorectal biofeedback therapy or pelvic floor physical therapy for the treatment of constipation and fecal incontinence (FI). However, the similarities and differences between these therapies are unclear.Objective: This practitioner survey aimed to evaluate the practice patterns of biofeedback therapists (BTs) and pelvic floor physical therapists (PTs).Settings: This survey was targeted at BTs and PTs in community and hospital settings.Methods: We conducted an international online survey about training, equipment, techniques, and practice patterns of BTs and PTs in treating patients with constipation and FI, distributed through specialist societies and known contacts. Language style was adjusted to the participants' preferences.Results: We received 289 responses from 226 (78.2%) PTs and 63 (21.8%) BTs from Australia/New Zealand (119; 41.2%), the USA (90; 31.1%), and the rest of the world (80; 27.7%). The use of biofeedback in treating anorectal disorders often or always differed; BTs 80.4% versus PTs 51.8% (OR 4.50 (2.48-8.17)). Equipment for delivering biofeedback differed: electromyography (BTs 32.1% versus PTs 77.1%; OR 0.14 (0.07-0.27)), manometry (BTs 71.4% versus PTs 4.8%; OR 45.94 (18.35-115.02)), and ultrasound (BTs 0% versus PTs 50.3%). Ancillary device use differed (e.g., footstool (BTs 68.8% versus PTs 88.7%; OR 0.32 (0.18-0.55)), release device (BTs 6.5% versus PTs 27.9%; OR 0.06 (0.03-0.13)), trigger point (BTs 4.9% versus PTs 28.9%; OR 0.04 (0.02-0.11))). Techniques used differed: abdominal massage (BTs 31.1% versus PTs 59.6%; OR 0.27 (0.15-0.46)), balloon expulsion BTs 65.6% versus PTs 9.4% (OR 14.82 (7.95-27.65)).Limitations: The uneven distribution of respondents between countries and groups and reliance on self-reporting limits the generalizability of this exploratory study.Conclusions: BTs and PTs reported vast differences in the delivery of care for anorectal disorders. PTs use biofeedback less often and, when delivering biofeedback, use less manometry and more electromyography and ultrasound. Recognition of these differences may better inform referring providers and facilitate a more collaborative, standardized approach in the future.","PeriodicalId":19123,"journal":{"name":"Neurogastroenterology and Motility","volume":"38 8","pages":"e70412"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13428267/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurogastroenterology and Motility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.70412","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: International guidelines recommend anorectal biofeedback therapy or pelvic floor physical therapy for the treatment of constipation and fecal incontinence (FI). However, the similarities and differences between these therapies are unclear.

Objective: This practitioner survey aimed to evaluate the practice patterns of biofeedback therapists (BTs) and pelvic floor physical therapists (PTs).

Settings: This survey was targeted at BTs and PTs in community and hospital settings.

Methods: We conducted an international online survey about training, equipment, techniques, and practice patterns of BTs and PTs in treating patients with constipation and FI, distributed through specialist societies and known contacts. Language style was adjusted to the participants' preferences.

Results: We received 289 responses from 226 (78.2%) PTs and 63 (21.8%) BTs from Australia/New Zealand (119; 41.2%), the USA (90; 31.1%), and the rest of the world (80; 27.7%). The use of biofeedback in treating anorectal disorders often or always differed; BTs 80.4% versus PTs 51.8% (OR 4.50 (2.48-8.17)). Equipment for delivering biofeedback differed: electromyography (BTs 32.1% versus PTs 77.1%; OR 0.14 (0.07-0.27)), manometry (BTs 71.4% versus PTs 4.8%; OR 45.94 (18.35-115.02)), and ultrasound (BTs 0% versus PTs 50.3%). Ancillary device use differed (e.g., footstool (BTs 68.8% versus PTs 88.7%; OR 0.32 (0.18-0.55)), release device (BTs 6.5% versus PTs 27.9%; OR 0.06 (0.03-0.13)), trigger point (BTs 4.9% versus PTs 28.9%; OR 0.04 (0.02-0.11))). Techniques used differed: abdominal massage (BTs 31.1% versus PTs 59.6%; OR 0.27 (0.15-0.46)), balloon expulsion BTs 65.6% versus PTs 9.4% (OR 14.82 (7.95-27.65)).

Limitations: The uneven distribution of respondents between countries and groups and reliance on self-reporting limits the generalizability of this exploratory study.

Conclusions: BTs and PTs reported vast differences in the delivery of care for anorectal disorders. PTs use biofeedback less often and, when delivering biofeedback, use less manometry and more electromyography and ultrasound. Recognition of these differences may better inform referring providers and facilitate a more collaborative, standardized approach in the future.

查看原文本刊更多论文

生物反馈疗法和盆底物理疗法治疗便秘和大便失禁在现实世界的实践是非常不同的。

背景：国际指南推荐肛肠生物反馈疗法或盆底物理疗法治疗便秘和大便失禁（FI）。然而，这些疗法之间的异同尚不清楚。目的：本实践者调查旨在评估生物反馈治疗师（BTs）和盆底物理治疗师（PTs）的实践模式。环境：本调查针对社区和医院环境中的bt和pt。方法：我们通过专业协会和已知联系人进行了一项关于bt和pt治疗便秘和FI患者的培训、设备、技术和实践模式的国际在线调查。语言风格根据参与者的喜好进行调整。结果：我们收到了来自澳大利亚/新西兰（119例；41.2%）、美国（90例；31.1%）和世界其他地区（80例；27.7%）的226例（78.2%）PTs和63例（21.8%）bt的289例应答。生物反馈在肛肠疾病治疗中的应用常常或总是不同的；BTs为80.4%，PTs为51.8% （OR 4.50(2.48-8.17)）。提供生物反馈的设备不同：肌电图（BTs为32.1%，PTs为77.1%；OR为0.14(0.07-0.27)）、测压（BTs为71.4%，PTs为4.8%；OR为45.94(18.35-115.02)）和超声（BTs为0%，PTs为50.3%）。辅助装置的使用不同(例如，脚凳（BTs 68.8% vs PTs 88.7%; OR 0.32（0.18-0.55)），释放装置（BTs 6.5% vs PTs 27.9%; OR 0.06（0.03-0.13)），触发点（BTs 4.9% vs PTs 28.9%; OR 0.04(0.02-0.11)）））。使用的技术不同：腹部按摩（BTs 31.1% vs PTs 59.6%; OR 0.27(0.15-0.46)），球囊排出BTs 65.6% vs PTs 9.4% （OR 14.82(7.95-27.65)）。局限性：调查对象在国家和群体之间的不均匀分布以及对自我报告的依赖限制了本探索性研究的普遍性。结论：据报道，BTs和PTs在提供肛肠疾病护理方面存在巨大差异。PTs较少使用生物反馈，并且在提供生物反馈时，较少使用测压，更多使用肌电图和超声。认识到这些差异可能会更好地为转诊提供者提供信息，并促进未来更协作、更标准化的方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Neurogastroenterology and Motility 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

7.80

自引率

8.60%

发文量

178

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： Neurogastroenterology & Motility (NMO) is the official Journal of the European Society of Neurogastroenterology & Motility (ESNM) and the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS). It is edited by James Galligan, Albert Bredenoord, and Stephen Vanner. The editorial and peer review process is independent of the societies affiliated to the journal and publisher: Neither the ANMS, the ESNM or the Publisher have editorial decision-making power. Whenever these are relevant to the content being considered or published, the editors, journal management committee and editorial board declare their interests and affiliations.