Effectiveness of Biofeedback Therapy in Patients with Bowel Dysfunction Following Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Systemic Review with Meta-Analysis

Abstract

To identify, systematically review and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of biofeedback therapy in patients with bowel dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. Data Sources: Four electronic databases (PubMed 1974(PubMed -2021 Embase1980-2021 Cochrane databases and the trial registers) were systematically searched by reviewers from inception through March 2021. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series studies were included for adults with bowel dysfunction following rectal cancer surgery. All participants received an intervention of biofeedback treatment. Any outcomes that can evaluate the patient's bowel function were the primary research endpoint, while the quality of life was the second endpoint. The disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved after discussion and the third independent reviewer's ruling. As a result, 12 of 185 studies met selection criteria and were included in the review. Data Extraction: We designed an electronic data extraction form and data were extracted independently. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias, the MINORS scale, and the Institute of Health Economics scale. Data Synthesis: Meta-analyses were conducted for case series only and narrative syntheses were completed. Key findings included significant improvements in bowel function as well as health-related quality of life after biofeedback therapy.

Care of Post-Operative Altered Bowel Function in Colorectal Cancer Patients

“…Although the better benefits seem to be proved on multimodalities than the single one, but the conclusion remained equivocal because of several risks of bias, including low quality across all studies due to small sample sizes, insufficient long-term follow-up, lack of randomized and blinding assessment, and heterogeneity of outcome [31,45]. Additionally, patients' satisfaction remained unclear [46].…”