Telephone vs. face-to-face biofeedback for fecal incontinence: comparison of two techniques in 239 patients

Biofeedback is an effective treatment for patients with fecal incontinence, yet little is known about how it works or the minimum regime necessary to provide clinical benefit. This study compares the effectiveness of a novel protocol of telephone-assisted biofeedback treatment for patients living in rural and remote areas with the standard face-to-face protocol for patients with fecal incontinence.

A new treatment program comprising an initial face-to-face assessment and treatment with transanal manometry and ultrasound biofeedback, followed by three treatments conducted via telephone and a final face-to-face assessment, was developed. Standard treatment involved five face-to-face treatment sessions with manometry and ultrasound. Patients from rural areas were offered the telephone-assisted treatment protocol. Data gathered prospectively included incontinence scores, a quality of life index, anal manometry, and external sphincter isometric and isotonic fatigue times.

A total of 239 consecutive patients treated between July 2001 and July 2004 were enrolled. There were no significant differences in demographic details, past history, or pretreatment measures of the two groups. Forty-six of 55 patients (84 percent) treated with the telephone protocol and 129 of 184 (70 percent) treated by the standard technique completed treatment. There were substantial, significant improvements after treatment, including 54 percent mean improvement in patient's own rating of their incontinence in both groups; a mean decrease of 3.1 and 3.2 on the St. Mark's incontinence score (from 7.9 to 4.7 and 7.4 to 4.2 of 13) and relative improvements of 128 and 130 percent in the quality of life index (from 0.29 to 0.65 and 0.3 to 0.69 of 1) for the telephone-assisted and standard groups respectively. Importantly, there were no significant differences between the telephone-assisted or standard groups in any outcome. Of patients who completed treatment, 78 percent were better or much better.

A less intensive regime of biofeedback seems to be equally effective as the standard intensive protocol. This finding adds weight to the evolving concept that the physical aspects of biofeedback treatment, such as manometry or ultrasound, may not be necessary in the treatment of most patients with fecal incontinence. This needs to be further tested in a randomized, controlled trial.