ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2020
Botulinum toxin A versus electrogalvanic stimulation for levator ani syndrome: is one a more effective therapy?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Topical Glyceryl Trinitrate be Effective in the Treatment of Levator Ani Syndrome?The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Levator ani spasm: what to do after biofeedback fails.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLevator ani syndrome (LAS) is a functional disorder that can be a challenge to treat. LAS that is refractory to medical management may be treated with electrogalvanic stimulation (EGS) or Botulinum toxin A (BTX) injection. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes associated with both EGS and BTX in patients with medically refectory LAS to determine if either demonstrate a long-term benefit or whether one treatment is better than the other.
methodsA retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients with LAS treated with BTX or EGS at our institute. Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The study time frame was 6 years.
resultsOne hundred and twenty patients [80 females, mean age 52 years (range 21-84, SD 15.8)] were treated for medically refractory LAS: 102 with BTX and 18 with EGS. With EGS, 28.6% of patients reported a complete response, 14.3% reported a partial response and 57.1% reported no response to treatment. With BTX, 35.5% of patients reported a complete response, 19.7% reported a partial response and 44.7% reported no response to treatment. There was no difference between BTX and EGS with regard to treatment response. Patients who had BTX were more likely to report a short-term benefit in treatment when compared to those patients who had EGS (p = 0.002). This difference between reported outcome to BTX and EGS treatments did not sustain in the long term (p = 0.2).
conclusionsBoth BTX and EGS are to some extent effective at resolving symptoms of LAS. In the short term, BTX appears to be more effective. Neither treatment sustains its benefit in the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.