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 3 Comparison between the before and after treatment assessments of both groups and between both groups in each phase regarding anal manometry parameters

Anal manometry parameters	Pretreatment assessment mean ± SD	Post-treatment assessment mean ± SD	Test of significance^b	P
Maximum straining anal pressure (hPa)
BF group (n = 21 patients)	48.71 ± 15.60	35.42 ± 11.85	− 3.020	0.003*
PTNS group (n = 20 patients)	43.70 ± 13.65	36.50 ± 12.33	− 3.416	0.001*
Test of significance^a	− 1.136	− 0.353
P	0.256	0.724
Maximum squeezing anal pressure (hPa)
BF group (n = 21 patients)	65.28 ± 22.82	92.95 ± 28.66	− 4.016	≤ 0.0001*
PTNS group (n = 20 patients)	73.45 ± 31.34	85.60 ± 36.86	− 3.683	≤ 0.0001*
Test of significance^a	− 1.201	− 0.366
P	0.230	0.715

BF biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training, PTNS posterior tibial nerve electrostimulation, n Number of patients, hPa hectopascal (it is equal to 100 Pa), SD standard deviation
*P ≤ 0.05 is considered significant
^aValue of Mann-Whitney test. It compares the results of the pretreatment assessment between both groups, as well as, the results of the post-treatment assessment between both groups
^bValue of Wilcoxon signed ranks test. It compares the results of the post-treatment assessment with the results of the pretreatment assessment within each group