Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 6949813

Mitigating pain through biofeedback.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Miller. 1981. Mitigating pain through biofeedback.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6949813/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Neurotherapy for stroke rehabilitation: a single case study.

A 55-year-old male subject was treated with a two-tiered neurotherapy approach for a period of six months beginning approximately one year after a left-side CVA. Medical evaluation revealed left posterior temporal/parietal infarctions secondary to occlusion of the left internal carotid artery. The patient complained of hesitant speech with word finding difficulty and paraphasia, difficulty focusing his right eye, lack of balance and coordination, poor short-term memory, poor concentration, anxiety, depression, and tinnitus. A quantitative electroencephalograph (QEEG) analysis revealed increased left-side 4-7-Hz activity and alpha persistence on eye opening. Two neurotherapy approaches were used beginning with electroencephalographic entrainment feedback (EEF). This was followed by neurofeedback to inhibit 4-7 Hz and increase 15-21 Hz over sensorimotor and speech areas. At the conclusion of treatment there were significant reductions in slow-wave activity. Improvement was evident in speech fluency, word finding, balance and coordination, attention, and concentration. Depression, anxiety, and tinnitus were greatly reduced.

Biofeedback, Psychology

Paradoxical puborectalis contraction in patients after pelvic pouch construction.

UNLABELLED: Normal defecation is associated with relaxation of sphincters during the evacuation process. However, obstructive defecation is sometimes seen clinically manifested by abnormal contraction of the puborectalis during defecation rather than relaxing. This condition has not previously been described after pelvic pouch construction. PURPOSE: This study was done to evaluate patients for defecation difficulties caused by paradoxical puborectalis contraction after pelvic pouch procedures. METHODS: Prospectively, patients with defecation difficulties were questioned. They then underwent electromyography if they met particular criteria. Biofeedback was offered to all patients demonstrating paradox on electromyography. Follow-up was by clinic visits and interviews. RESULTS: After pelvic pouch construction, 13 patients were found to have paradoxical puborectalis contraction. Twelve of 13 patients elected to have biofeedback therapy. Eleven of these 12 were available for follow-up an average of eight (1-15) months after biofeedback. Nine improved, and two had no change in their defecation difficulty. Of the initial 13, 10 had an event, either pouchitis or abdominal trauma, directly before their defecation problems. CONCLUSION: Paradoxical puborectalis contraction can occur in patients after pelvic pouch surgery. It should be suspected in patients with defecation difficulties in the absence of an anatomic abnormality. Biofeedback is effective treatment.

Biofeedback, Psychology