Table 6.

Pelvic floor muscle training outcomes (pouch)

Author, year, country, and study type	Participants completed and dropouts	Measure	Preintervention Mean (SD)	Postintervention, Mean (SD)	P‐value	Follow‐up	Outcome
Oresland et al., 198851 Sweden Randomized controlled trial	Training 18/20 Control 20/20 2 in training group withdrawn due to postoperative complication	Maximum pouch volume Maximum anal resting and squeeze pressures Bowel frequency per 24 h —bowel diary Oresland functional score	4 weeks after pouch construction 75ml Maximum resting pressure 50 mmHg Maximum squeeze pressure 170 mmHg 1 week after stoma closure Training group 7.3 (2.5) Control group 7.5 (2.5) Actual scores not stated	Prior to stoma reversal Training group 136 (34) ml Control group 108 (57) ml 12 months after stoma closure Maximum volume both groups 265 ml At 12 months Maximum resting pressure Training group 56 (17) mmHg Control group 50 (15) mmHg Maximum squeeze pressure both groups = 200 mmHg 6 months after stoma closure Training group 4.9 (1.6) Control group 5.4 (1.8) Actual scores not stated	NS NS NS NS NS NS	Before stoma closure 1, 3, 6, and 12 months poststoma reversal	Training prior to stoma reversal did not have a significant effect on maximum pouch volume, maximum anal squeeze pressure, or maximum anal resting pressure Training prior to stoma reversal did not affect functional outcome
Jorge et al., 199452 USA Randomized controlled trial	Training 13/13 Control 13/13 Dropouts not reported	Anal sphincter pressures Cleveland Fecal Incontinence score	Anal resting pressure Control 65 (15) mmHg Training 75 (25) mmHg Anal Squeeze pressure Control 128 (52) mmHg Training 97 (48) mmHg Control 0.2 (0.1)Training 0.2 (1.2)	Anal resting pressure Control 44 (14) mmHg Training 48 (18) mmHg Anal Squeeze pressure Control 110 (48) mmHg Training 86 (44) mmHg Control 2.8 (1.6) Training 2.0 (1.2)	0.20 0.300.07	Within 1 month of stoma reversal	Training prior to stoma reversal did not affect anal pressures or functional outcome soon after stoma reversal
Hull et al.,199553 USA Prospective case series	12/13 1 patient was lost to follow‐up	Patient report of symptom resolution and normal EMG	None reported	None reported	Not reported	Average follow‐up 8 months Range, 1–15	Improved 9/12 (75%) No change 2/12 (17%) All 11 normalized EMG
Quinn et al., 201739 USA Retrospective case series	22/33 7 dropped out due to pain with treatment 3 with time constraints 1 due to lack of progress	Patient rating 15‐point Likert scale −7 “a great deal worse” 0 “no change” + 7 “a very great deal better” Physician rating of improvement “significant improvement” “mild–moderate improvement” “no change”	Not reported	Change in patient rating scale +4.6	Not reported	At completion of training	Significant improvement 5/22 (23%) Mild–moderate improvement 15/22 (68%) No change 2/22 (9%)
Segal et al., 201855 UK Retrospective case series	24/24 Objective data available for only 9/24 patients	Subjective improvement rating by 2 independent reviewers from patient reports in the medical record ICIQ‐B questionnaire Bowel pattern Bowel control Nonscored Quality of life St Marks tool for ED	Not relevant FI Group n = 5/16 Median (range)62 (49–62) 82 (33–102) 22 (17–35) 80 (62–98) ED Group n = 4/8 Incomplete emptying 4/4 (100%) Straining 4/4 (100%) Pain 4/4 (100%) Bloating 3/4 (75%) Laxatives 1/4 (25%)	Not reported 46 (39–62) 53 (11–76) 29 (12–29) 41 (30–55) Incomplete emptying 4/4 (100%) Straining 2/4 (50%) Pain 1/4 (25%) Bloating 2/4 (50%) Laxatives 0/4 (0%)	Not reported 0.12 0.21 0.35 0.01 * Not reported	Median follow‐up 3 months from last biofeedback session Range, 1–6 months	FI Much improved 4/16 25% Some improvement 8/16 50% No improvement 4/16 25% ED Much improved 4/8 50% Some improvement 2/8 25% No improvement 2/8 25% Combined outcome (FI and ED) Improved 75%

^* P < 0.05.

ED, evacuation disorder; EMG, electromyography; FI, fecal incontinence; ICIQ, International Consultation on Incontinence questionnaire‐bowel; NS, not significant.