Biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training versus posterior tibial nerve electrostimulation in treatment of functional obstructed defecation: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

Table 1 Baseline characteristics and electrophysiological findings of the two patients’ groups

Baseline characteristics and electrophysiological findings	BF group (n = 21 patients) mean ± SD	PTNS group (n = 20 patients) mean ± SD	Test of significance	P
Age (years)	40.57 ± 16.97	35.20 ± 13.56	Z = − 1.031	0.302
Women^a	11(52.4)	13(65.0)	χ² = 0.672	0.530§
Anthropometric measurements
Weight (kg)	73.09 ± 20.91	67.20 ± 19.88	Z = − 0.758	0.449
Height (cm)	162.71 ± 6.45	164.10 ± 7.55	Z = − 0.694	0.488
BMI (kg/m²)	27.53 ± 7.38	24.78 ± 6.79	Z = − 1.422	0.155
Clinical data
Duration of the symptoms (years)	6.47 ± 4.67	5.85 ± 4.97	Z = − 0.708	0.479
MOS^b	5(4–5)	5(4–5)	Z = − 1.100	0.271
Electrophysiological findings
Pudendal nerve status
Normal pudendal nerve bilaterally^a	4(19.0%)	6(30.0%)	χ² = 0.767	0.681
Unilateral pudendal neuropathy^a	4(19.0%)	4(20.0%)
Bilateral pudendal neuropathy^a	13(61.9%)	10(50.0%)
Needle electromyography
EMG evidence of anismus in EAS^a	16(76.2%)	15(75.0%)	χ² = 0.008	0.929
EMG evidence of anismus in PR^a	21(100%)	20(100%)	NA	NA

BMI Body mass index, MOS Modified Oxford Scale, EMG Electromyography, EAS External anal sphincter muscle, PR Puborectalis muscle, BF Biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training, PTNS Posterior tibial nerve electrostimulation, n Number of patients, SD Standard deviation, Z value of Mann-Whitney test, χ² value of chi-square test, NA not applicable
*P ≤ 0.05 is considered significant
^§Value of P of Fisher’s exact test
^aData are represented as number (percentage)
^bData are represented as median (range)