Biofeedback is superior to electrogalvanic stimulation and massage for treatment of levator ani syndrome.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effectiveness of massage, biofeedback, and electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) in treating Levator ani syndrome (LAS) and assess the physiological mechanisms behind these treatments.
Results Summary
Massage was the least effective treatment for LAS, with only 22% of patients reporting adequate relief, minimal reduction in pain days (from 14.7 to 13.3 per month), and slight pain intensity decrease (from 6.8 to 6.0 on a 0-10 scale). Improvements were maintained for 12 months, but only patients with "highly likely" LAS benefited.
Population
Patients with Levator ani syndrome (LAS), categorized as "highly likely" or "possible" based on tenderness with levator muscle traction.
Effective Dosage
9 sessions (frequency not specified)
Duration
Follow-up assessments at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
biofeedback | increase | adequate relief | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | 87% | adequate relief was reported by 87% | #1 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | increase | adequate relief | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | 45% | adequate relief was reported by 45% | #2 |
massage | increase | adequate relief | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | 22% | adequate relief was reported by 22% | #3 |
biofeedback | decrease | pain days per month | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | from 14.7 at baseline to 3.3 | decreased | #4 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | decrease | pain days per month | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | from 14.7 at baseline to 8.9 | decreased | #5 |
massage | decrease | pain days per month | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | from 14.7 at baseline to 13.3 | decreased | #6 |
biofeedback | decrease | pain intensity | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | from 6.8 (0-10 scale) at baseline to 1.8 | decreased | #7 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | decrease | pain intensity | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | from 6.8 (0-10 scale) at baseline to 4.7 | decreased | #8 |
massage | decrease | pain intensity | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | from 6.8 (0-10 scale) at baseline to 6.0 | decreased | #9 |
biofeedback | increase | ability to relax pelvic floor muscles | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | improved | #10 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | increase | ability to relax pelvic floor muscles | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | improved | #11 |
biofeedback | increase | ability to evacuate a water-filled balloon | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | improved | #12 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | increase | ability to evacuate a water-filled balloon | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | improved | #13 |
biofeedback | decrease | urge threshold | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | reducing | #14 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | decrease | urge threshold | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | reducing | #15 |
biofeedback | decrease | pain threshold | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | reducing | #16 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | decrease | pain threshold | patients with 'highly likely' LAS | - | reducing | #17 |
biofeedback | no change | - | patients with only a 'possible' diagnosis of LAS | - | did not benefit | #18 |
electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) | no change | - | patients with only a 'possible' diagnosis of LAS | - | did not benefit | #19 |
massage | no change | - | patients with only a 'possible' diagnosis of LAS | - | did not benefit | #20 |
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Levator ani syndrome (LAS) might be treated using biofeedback to teach pelvic floor relaxation, electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS), or massage of levator muscles. We performed a prospective, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of these techniques and assess physiologic mechanisms for treatment. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were Rome II symptoms plus weekly pain. Patients were categorized as "highly likely" to have LAS if they reported tenderness with traction on the levator muscles or as "possible" LAS if they did not. All 157 patients received 9 sessions including psychologic counseling plus biofeedback, EGS, or massage. Outcomes were reassessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Among patients with "highly likely" LAS, adequate relief was reported by 87% for biofeedback, 45% for EGS, and 22% for massage. Pain days per month decreased from 14.7 at baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback, 8.9 after EGS, and 13.3 after massage. Pain intensity decreased from 6.8 (0-10 scale) at baseline to 1.8 after biofeedback, 4.7 after EGS, and 6.0 after massage. Improvements were maintained for 12 months. Patients with only a "possible" diagnosis of LAS did not benefit from any treatment. Biofeedback and EGS improved LAS by increasing the ability to relax pelvic floor muscles and evacuate a water-filled balloon and by reducing the urge and pain thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback is the most effective of these treatments, and EGS is somewhat effective. Only patients with tenderness on rectal examination benefit. The pathophysiology of LAS is similar to that of dyssynergic defecation.