实用医学杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (15): 2372-2380.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.15.012

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    

生物反馈联合磁电刺激对盆底痉挛综合征患者排粪梗阻的改善作用

袁泽峰,田高源,黄志伟,曹玉婷,孔斌()   

  1. 河北医科大学第三医院胃肠外科 (河北 石家庄 050000 )
  • 收稿日期:2025-03-07 出版日期:2025-08-10 发布日期:2025-08-11
  • 通讯作者: 孔斌 E-mail:kongtian75@hebmu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    河北省医学科学研究课题计划项目(20250571)

Biofeedback combined with magnetic⁃electric stimulation in the treatment of fecal obstruction symptoms caused by spastic pelvic floor syndrome

Zefeng YUAN,Gaoyuan TIAN,Zhiwei HUANG,Yuting CAO,Bin KONG()   

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery,the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Shijiazhuang 050000,Hebei,China
  • Received:2025-03-07 Online:2025-08-10 Published:2025-08-11
  • Contact: Bin KONG E-mail:kongtian75@hebmu.edu.cn

摘要:

目的 探讨在生物反馈的基础上联合盆底磁刺激和中频脉冲电治疗对盆底痉挛综合征患者的排粪梗阻症状的改善情况。 方法 选取2017年1月至2025年1月在河北医科大学第三医院胃肠外科门诊及住院确诊为盆底痉挛综合征的患者133例,所有患者均接受2个疗程的常规生物反馈治疗,并根据后续接受的不同治疗方式分组。对照组仅接受生物反馈治疗;磁刺激组额外接受2个疗程盆底磁刺激;电刺激组额外接受2个疗程中频脉冲电治疗;磁电联合组额外接受2个疗程盆底磁刺激和中频脉冲电治疗),观察4组治疗前、治疗结束时、3个月随访时的排粪梗阻相关症状改善情况。 结果 133例盆底痉挛综合征患者于3个月随访后,失访8例(6.0%),最终125例患者完成随访并纳入分析,包括对照组(n = 32)、磁刺激组(n = 30)、电刺激组(n = 31)和磁电联合组(n = 32)。与仅接受生物反馈治疗相比,联合盆底磁刺激与中频脉冲电治疗均表现出更少的手助排便、排便不尽感和排便费力,且将三者联合应用可达到更好的治疗效果。 结论 在生物反馈的基础联合盆底磁刺激和中频脉冲电治疗能够更大程度地缓解盆底痉挛患者的排便费力程度、排便不尽感症状以及减少手助排便次数,并在短期内稳定维持治疗效果。

关键词: 生物反馈, 盆底磁刺激, 中频脉冲电治疗, 盆底痉挛综合征, 出口梗阻型便秘

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the effects of integrating pelvic floor magnetic stimulation and medium-frequency pulsed electrotherapy with biofeedback on alleviating obstructed defecation symptoms in patients diagnosed with pelvic floor spasm syndrome. Methods A total of 133 patients diagnosed with pelvic floor spasm syndrome at the Gastrointestinal Surgery Outpatient and Inpatient Departments of the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January 2017 and January 2025 were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent two sessions of conventional biofeedback therapy. According to the additional treatments they received, the patients were categorized into four groups: the Control group (received biofeedback therapy only); the Magnetic Stimulation group (received two additional sessions of pelvic floor magnetic stimulation); the Electrical Stimulation group (received two additional sessions of medium-frequency pulse electrical therapy); and the Magnetic-Electric Combined group (received two additional sessions of both pelvic floor magnetic stimulation and medium-frequency pulse electrical therapy). The improvement in obstructed defecation symptoms was evaluated before treatment, after treatment, and at the 3-month follow-up across all four groups. Results A total of 133 patients diagnosed with pelvic floor spasm syndrome were enrolled in this study. After a 3-month follow-up period, 8 patients were lost to follow-up (6.0%). Consequently, 125 patients completed the follow-up and were included in the final analysis. These patients were distributed across four groups: the control group (n = 32), the magnetic stimulation group (n = 30), the electrical stimulation group (n = 31), and the combined magneto-electric stimulation group (n = 32). Compared with biofeedback therapy alone, combination therapy led to a greater reduction in the need for manual assistance during defecation, the sensation of incomplete evacuation, and the requirement for straining during defecation, with the most pronounced improvements observed in the combined magneto-electric stimulation group. Conclusions The integration of biofeedback, pelvic floor magnetic stimulation, and medium-frequency pulse electrotherapy can significantly alleviate symptoms including straining during defecation, the sensation of incomplete bowel evacuation, and reduce the need for manual assistance. Moreover, this combined approach contributes to the stabilization and maintenance of therapeutic effects in the short term.

Key words: biofeedback, pelvic floor magnetic stimulation, medium-frequency pulse electrotherapy, spastic pelvic floor syndrome, outlet obstruction constipation

中图分类号: