1,720,994 research outputs found
Staying in HRAM’s Way: Tweaking the London Classification for Disorders of Anorectal Function
No full textBiofeedback therapy for constipation due to dyssynergic defecation: ready for prime time
No full textBloating and functional gastro-intestinal disorders: Where are we and where are we going?
Full text linkProkinetic effect of gut-oriented hypnosis on gastric emptying
No full textBACKGROUND: No data are available on the effect of hypnosis on gastric emptying. AIM: To determine the effect of a hypnosis session on gastric emptying and dyspeptic symptoms. METHODS: We studied emptying by ultrasonography and epigastric sensations in 11 healthy subjects and in 15 patients affected by functional dyspepsia under three conditions according to a fixed schedule: (a) basal, (b) after cisapride and (c) during a 90 min hypnotic trance. Eight healthy subjects repeated an emptying study listening to relaxing music. Statistical analysis was performed using the Friedman test or RM-ANOVA. RESULTS: In dyspeptics, the postprandial increase in the antral area was significantly smaller during the hypnosis trance than under the basal and the cisapride conditions. For the patients gastric emptying was significantly shortened by cisapride, and even more by hypnosis (basal 274 +/- 16.8 min; cisapride 227 +/- 13.2; hypnosis 150 +/- 9.7) whereas for healthy subjects it was shortened only by hypnosis. The repeated study in healthy subjects listening to relaxing music showed no significant difference compared with the basal. Epigastric sensations were improved in dyspeptics by hypnosis, but not by cisapride. CONCLUSIONS: Gut-oriented hypnosis is effective in shortening gastric emptying both in dyspeptic and in healthy subjects
Difficult defecation in constipated patients: Diagnosis by minimally invasive diagnostic tests
No full textBackground and aims: Defecation Disorders (DD) are a frequent cause of refractory chronic constipation. DD diagnosis requires anorectal physiology testing. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy and Odds Ratio (OR) of a straining question (SQ) and a digital rectal examination (DRE) augmented by abdomen palpation on predicting a DD diagnosis in refractory CC patients. Methods: Two hundred and thirty-eight constipated patients were enrolled. Patients underwent SQ, augmented DRE and balloon evacuation test before entering the study and after a 30-day fiber/laxative trial. All patients underwent anorectal manometry. OR and accuracy were calculated for SQ and augmented DRE for both dyssynergic defecation and inadequate propulsion. Results: “Anal Muscles” response was associated to both dyssynergic defecation and inadequate propulsion, with an OR of 13.6 and 5.85 and an accuracy of 78.5% and 66.4%, respectively. “Failed anal relaxation” on augmented DRE was associated with dyssynergic defecation, with an OR of 21.4 and an accuracy of 73.1%. “Failed abdominal contraction” on augmented DRE was associated with inadequate propulsion with an OR >100 and an accuracy of 97.1%. Conclusions: Our data support screening constipated patients for DD by SQ and augmented DRE to improve management and appropriateness of referral to biofeedback
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Endoluminal instillation of bisacodyl in patients with severe(slow transit) constipation is useful to test residual propulsive activity
No full textPelvic floor biofeedback is an effective treatment for severe bloating in disorders of gut-brain interaction with outlet dysfunction
No full textBackground: The pathophysiology of bloating is partially understood. We investigated in patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) the relationship between severity of bloating, abdominal girth changes and defecation pattern, and the efficacy of pelvic floor biofeedback treatment on bloating. Methods: Disorders of gut-brain interaction patients with severe bloating as the main complaint were prescribed 2 weeks dietary advice and underwent abdominal girth measurements. At the first visit, all patients underwent a questionnaire on the subjective improvement of bloating, a (0–100) VAS abdominal bloating, and abdominal girth measurement. Patients reporting inadequate bloating relief underwent a standardized balloon expulsion test. Furthermore, they were invited to undergo pelvic floor electromyography and biofeedback treatment previously used for constipation due to dyssynergic defecation. The primary outcome was bloating improvement on a 5-point Likert scale. The secondary outcomes were the effect of diet intervention and pelvic floor biofeedback treatment on bloating severity and quality of life changes as well as the effect of pelvic floor biofeedback treatment on BET and EMG on straining. Key results: One hundred and fifty six patients (129 F, 39.3 ± 11.7 mean age) completed the 2-week run-in period. 105 patients were diet non-responder and underwent balloon expulsion test, with the vast majority (64%) failing the test. Patients who scored higher bloating on VAS had a significant association with failed balloon expulsion test (adjusted B 0.4 [95% CI 10.8–25.7], p < 0.0001). 63% agreed to perform pelvic floor biofeedback treatment at Verona center, 54% became responders reporting fair or major improvement/cure (ITT analysis, McNemar test, p < 0.0001), and all of them showed a 50% decrease in bloating severity. Conclusions and Inferences: Disordered defecation is a prevalent etiology in DGBI patients with bloating unresponsive to conservative measures; pelvic floor biofeedback treatment to improve the defecation effort significantly relieved bloating (http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN17004079)
- …
