Biofeedback Benefits Only Patients With Outlet Dysfunction, Not Patients With Isolated Slow Transit Constipation

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biofeedback is reported to be as effective for slow transit constipation as for pelvic floor dyssynergia and no more effective than education. We aimed to test the hypothesis that biofeedback benefits only patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia, describe the physiologic mechanism of treatment, and identify predictors of success. METHODS: Fifty-two patients (49 women; average age, 35 years), all with delayed whole gut transit, included 34 with pelvic floor dyssynergia, 12 with slow transit only, and 6 who met only 1 of 2 criteria for pelvic floor dyssynergia. All received 5 weekly biofeedback sessions directed at increasing rectal pressure and relaxing pelvic floor muscles during straining plus practice defecating a balloon. Patients were retested by questionnaire; symptom diary; balloon defecation; transit study at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months; and anorectal manometry at 1 and 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, greater improvements were seen in pelvic floor dyssynergia compared with slow transit only; 71% versus 8% reported satisfaction ( P = .001), and 76% versus 8% reported >/=3 bowel movements per week ( P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 24 months of follow-up. Biofeedback eliminated dyssynergia in 91% and enabled 85% to defecate the balloon. Satisfaction was correlated with improved ability to defecate the balloon (rho = .73; P < .001), reductions in dyssynergia (rho = .69; P < .001), and increased rectal pressure during straining (rho = .36; P < .01). Success was predicted by pelvic floor dyssynergia, milder constipation, and less frequent abdominal pain at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback is an effective treatment for pelvic floor dyssynergia but not slow transit constipation

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified