Loading…
Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation?
Aim The study was designed to evaluate the results of rehabilitative treatment in patients suffering from obstructed defaecation. Method Between January 2008 and July 2010, 39 patients (37 women, age range 25–73 years; and two men, aged 57 and 67 years) affected by obstructed defaecation were incl...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Colorectal disease 2012-04, Vol.14 (4), p.474-479 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63 |
| container_end_page | 479 |
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 474 |
| container_title | Colorectal disease |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Pucciani, F. Reggioli, M. Ringressi, M. N. |
| description | Aim The study was designed to evaluate the results of rehabilitative treatment in patients suffering from obstructed defaecation.
Method Between January 2008 and July 2010, 39 patients (37 women, age range 25–73 years; and two men, aged 57 and 67 years) affected by obstructed defaecation were included in the study. After a preliminary clinical evaluation, including the Obstructed Defaecation Syndrome (ODS) score, defaecography and anorectal manometry were performed. All 39 patients underwent rehabilitative treatment according to the ‘multimodal rehabilitative programme’ for obstructive defaecation. At the end of the programme, all 39 patients were reassessed by clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry. Postrehabilition ODS scores were used to categorize patients arbitrarily into three classes, as follows: class I, good (score ≤ 4); class II, fair (score > 4 to ≤ 8); and class III, poor (score > 8).
Results After rehabilitation, there was significant improvement in the overall mean ODS score (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02644.x |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_926643869</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>926643869</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwCyg7Vgl-1XFAAqEApaKiG147y3EmakpKip2o7d-TNKVrZjMj-84Z6SDkERyQpi7nAeGC-YQRGVBMSICp4DxYH6D-_uNwO1NfRgT30Ilzc4yJCIk8Rj1KhIwYFX10PU1cZWtTQeqlkGkwusrL7ytvNdOVlzuvmoFnywK8MvMszHSSF3m1zdyeoqNMFw7Odn2A3h4fXuMnfzIdjeO7iW-GlHGfcgmCJViGkkrIaGok5iyhwEIuCJE85FHzZHCUAtWCGxqKhEpGQgbDxAg2QBcdd2nLnxpcpRa5M1AU-hvK2qmICsGZFFGTlF3S2NI5C5la2nyh7UYRrFpzaq5aQaoVpFpzamtOrZvV892ROllAul_8U9UEbrrAKi9g82-wiqf343ZsAH4HyF0F6z1A2y8lQhYO1cfLSMXP74xF0acasl_gnYl6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>926643869</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation?</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Pucciani, F. ; Reggioli, M. ; Ringressi, M. N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pucciani, F. ; Reggioli, M. ; Ringressi, M. N.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim The study was designed to evaluate the results of rehabilitative treatment in patients suffering from obstructed defaecation.
Method Between January 2008 and July 2010, 39 patients (37 women, age range 25–73 years; and two men, aged 57 and 67 years) affected by obstructed defaecation were included in the study. After a preliminary clinical evaluation, including the Obstructed Defaecation Syndrome (ODS) score, defaecography and anorectal manometry were performed. All 39 patients underwent rehabilitative treatment according to the ‘multimodal rehabilitative programme’ for obstructive defaecation. At the end of the programme, all 39 patients were reassessed by clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry. Postrehabilition ODS scores were used to categorize patients arbitrarily into three classes, as follows: class I, good (score ≤ 4); class II, fair (score > 4 to ≤ 8); and class III, poor (score > 8).
Results After rehabilitation, there was significant improvement in the overall mean ODS score (P < 0.001). Thirty (76.9%) patients were included as class I (good results), of whom eight (20.5%) were symptom free. Five (12.8%) patients were considered class III. A significant postrehabilitative direct correlation was found between ODS score and pelvic surgery (ρs = 0.54; P < 0.05). Significant differences were found between pre‐ and postrehabilitative manometric data from the straining test (P < 0.001), duration of maximal voluntary contraction (P < 0.001) and conscious rectal sensitivity threshold (P < 0.02).
Conclusion After rehabilitation, some patients become symptom free and many had an improved ODS score.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1462-8910</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1463-1318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02644.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21689326</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Anal Canal - physiopathology ; anorectal manometry ; biofeedback ; Biofeedback, Psychology ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Constipation - diagnosis ; Constipation - physiopathology ; Constipation - rehabilitation ; Electric Stimulation Therapy ; Enema ; Exercise Therapy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Manometry ; Middle Aged ; multimodal rehabilitation programme ; Obstructed defaecation ; Prospective Studies ; Rectum - physiopathology ; rehabilitation ; Severity of Illness Index ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Colorectal disease, 2012-04, Vol.14 (4), p.474-479</ispartof><rights>2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland</rights><rights>2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21689326$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pucciani, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reggioli, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ringressi, M. N.</creatorcontrib><title>Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation?</title><title>Colorectal disease</title><addtitle>Colorectal Dis</addtitle><description>Aim The study was designed to evaluate the results of rehabilitative treatment in patients suffering from obstructed defaecation.
Method Between January 2008 and July 2010, 39 patients (37 women, age range 25–73 years; and two men, aged 57 and 67 years) affected by obstructed defaecation were included in the study. After a preliminary clinical evaluation, including the Obstructed Defaecation Syndrome (ODS) score, defaecography and anorectal manometry were performed. All 39 patients underwent rehabilitative treatment according to the ‘multimodal rehabilitative programme’ for obstructive defaecation. At the end of the programme, all 39 patients were reassessed by clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry. Postrehabilition ODS scores were used to categorize patients arbitrarily into three classes, as follows: class I, good (score ≤ 4); class II, fair (score > 4 to ≤ 8); and class III, poor (score > 8).
Results After rehabilitation, there was significant improvement in the overall mean ODS score (P < 0.001). Thirty (76.9%) patients were included as class I (good results), of whom eight (20.5%) were symptom free. Five (12.8%) patients were considered class III. A significant postrehabilitative direct correlation was found between ODS score and pelvic surgery (ρs = 0.54; P < 0.05). Significant differences were found between pre‐ and postrehabilitative manometric data from the straining test (P < 0.001), duration of maximal voluntary contraction (P < 0.001) and conscious rectal sensitivity threshold (P < 0.02).
Conclusion After rehabilitation, some patients become symptom free and many had an improved ODS score.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anal Canal - physiopathology</subject><subject>anorectal manometry</subject><subject>biofeedback</subject><subject>Biofeedback, Psychology</subject><subject>Combined Modality Therapy</subject><subject>Constipation - diagnosis</subject><subject>Constipation - physiopathology</subject><subject>Constipation - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation Therapy</subject><subject>Enema</subject><subject>Exercise Therapy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manometry</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>multimodal rehabilitation programme</subject><subject>Obstructed defaecation</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Rectum - physiopathology</subject><subject>rehabilitation</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1462-8910</issn><issn>1463-1318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwCyg7Vgl-1XFAAqEApaKiG147y3EmakpKip2o7d-TNKVrZjMj-84Z6SDkERyQpi7nAeGC-YQRGVBMSICp4DxYH6D-_uNwO1NfRgT30Ilzc4yJCIk8Rj1KhIwYFX10PU1cZWtTQeqlkGkwusrL7ytvNdOVlzuvmoFnywK8MvMszHSSF3m1zdyeoqNMFw7Odn2A3h4fXuMnfzIdjeO7iW-GlHGfcgmCJViGkkrIaGok5iyhwEIuCJE85FHzZHCUAtWCGxqKhEpGQgbDxAg2QBcdd2nLnxpcpRa5M1AU-hvK2qmICsGZFFGTlF3S2NI5C5la2nyh7UYRrFpzaq5aQaoVpFpzamtOrZvV892ROllAul_8U9UEbrrAKi9g82-wiqf343ZsAH4HyF0F6z1A2y8lQhYO1cfLSMXP74xF0acasl_gnYl6</recordid><startdate>201204</startdate><enddate>201204</enddate><creator>Pucciani, F.</creator><creator>Reggioli, M.</creator><creator>Ringressi, M. N.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201204</creationdate><title>Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation?</title><author>Pucciani, F. ; Reggioli, M. ; Ringressi, M. N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anal Canal - physiopathology</topic><topic>anorectal manometry</topic><topic>biofeedback</topic><topic>Biofeedback, Psychology</topic><topic>Combined Modality Therapy</topic><topic>Constipation - diagnosis</topic><topic>Constipation - physiopathology</topic><topic>Constipation - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation Therapy</topic><topic>Enema</topic><topic>Exercise Therapy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manometry</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>multimodal rehabilitation programme</topic><topic>Obstructed defaecation</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Rectum - physiopathology</topic><topic>rehabilitation</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pucciani, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reggioli, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ringressi, M. N.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Colorectal disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pucciani, F.</au><au>Reggioli, M.</au><au>Ringressi, M. N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation?</atitle><jtitle>Colorectal disease</jtitle><addtitle>Colorectal Dis</addtitle><date>2012-04</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>474</spage><epage>479</epage><pages>474-479</pages><issn>1462-8910</issn><eissn>1463-1318</eissn><abstract>Aim The study was designed to evaluate the results of rehabilitative treatment in patients suffering from obstructed defaecation.
Method Between January 2008 and July 2010, 39 patients (37 women, age range 25–73 years; and two men, aged 57 and 67 years) affected by obstructed defaecation were included in the study. After a preliminary clinical evaluation, including the Obstructed Defaecation Syndrome (ODS) score, defaecography and anorectal manometry were performed. All 39 patients underwent rehabilitative treatment according to the ‘multimodal rehabilitative programme’ for obstructive defaecation. At the end of the programme, all 39 patients were reassessed by clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry. Postrehabilition ODS scores were used to categorize patients arbitrarily into three classes, as follows: class I, good (score ≤ 4); class II, fair (score > 4 to ≤ 8); and class III, poor (score > 8).
Results After rehabilitation, there was significant improvement in the overall mean ODS score (P < 0.001). Thirty (76.9%) patients were included as class I (good results), of whom eight (20.5%) were symptom free. Five (12.8%) patients were considered class III. A significant postrehabilitative direct correlation was found between ODS score and pelvic surgery (ρs = 0.54; P < 0.05). Significant differences were found between pre‐ and postrehabilitative manometric data from the straining test (P < 0.001), duration of maximal voluntary contraction (P < 0.001) and conscious rectal sensitivity threshold (P < 0.02).
Conclusion After rehabilitation, some patients become symptom free and many had an improved ODS score.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>21689326</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02644.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1462-8910 |
| ispartof | Colorectal disease, 2012-04, Vol.14 (4), p.474-479 |
| issn | 1462-8910 1463-1318 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_926643869 |
| source | Wiley |
| subjects | Adult Aged Anal Canal - physiopathology anorectal manometry biofeedback Biofeedback, Psychology Combined Modality Therapy Constipation - diagnosis Constipation - physiopathology Constipation - rehabilitation Electric Stimulation Therapy Enema Exercise Therapy Female Humans Male Manometry Middle Aged multimodal rehabilitation programme Obstructed defaecation Prospective Studies Rectum - physiopathology rehabilitation Severity of Illness Index Treatment Outcome |
| title | Obstructed defaecation: what is the role of rehabilitation? |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T14%3A04%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Obstructed%20defaecation:%20what%20is%20the%20role%20of%20rehabilitation?&rft.jtitle=Colorectal%20disease&rft.au=Pucciani,%20F.&rft.date=2012-04&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=474&rft.epage=479&rft.pages=474-479&rft.issn=1462-8910&rft.eissn=1463-1318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02644.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E926643869%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5234-248e63b087828ef2dc8043b2e37461184749c80c09de2a64c276b283173e5bc63%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=926643869&rft_id=info:pmid/21689326&rfr_iscdi=true |