Non-surgical magnetic-electrical biofeedback improves anterior resection syndrome after sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer

doi:10.4240/wjgs.121902

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 18, Issue 8

This Article

(4)

(7)

(0)

(32)

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

ISSN

1948-9366

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Prospective Study

Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Gastrointest Surg. Aug 27, 2026; 18(8): 121902
Published online Aug 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.121902

Table 1 Baseline data of two groups, n (%)/mean ± SD

Group	Gender		Age (years)	Distance (cm) from the tumor to the anal margin	Clinical staging
Group	Male	Female	Age (years)	Distance (cm) from the tumor to the anal margin	Phase II	Phase III
Control group (n = 30)	19 (63.33)	11 (36.67)	61.17 ± 3.05	7.15 ± 0.63	23 (76.67)	7 (23.33)
Study group (n = 30)	18 (60.00)	12 (40.00)	60.47 ± 3.36	7.21 ± 0.59	22 (73.33)	8 (26.67)
χ²/t	0.071		0.845	0.381	0.089
P value	0.791		0.402	0.705	0.765

Full Size Table

Table 2 Comparison of defecation-related indicators between the two groups, mean ± SD

Group	Number of bowel movements (times/day)		Frequency of fecal incontinence (points)
Group	Before	After	Before	After
Control group (n = 30)	5.17 ± 1.36	3.35 ± 0.72	7.12 ± 1.46	4.61 ± 1.13
Study group (n = 30)	5.28 ± 1.41	2.64 ± 0.59	7.35 ± 1.54	2.47 ± 0.52
t	0.308	4.178	0.594	9.423
P value	0.760	< 0.001	0.555	< 0.001

Full Size Table

Table 3 Low Anterior Resection Syndrome scores of patients in the two groups, mean ± SD (point)

Group	Before	1 month after intervention	3 months after intervention
Control group (n = 30)	31.82 ± 3.67	24.13 ± 3.42^a	15.46 ± 2.85^a
Study group (n = 30)	31.95 ± 3.72	21.49 ± 3.15^a	11.07 ± 2.61^a
t	0.136	3.110	6.222
P value	0.892	0.003	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05 vs the pre-intervention level within the group.

Full Size Table

Table 4 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument scores of patients in the two groups, mean ± SD (point)

Group	Before	1 month after intervention	3 months after intervention
Control group (n = 30)	32.17 ± 4.39	41.63 ± 5.21^a	55.92 ± 6.87^a
Study group (n = 30)	31.76 ± 4.68	47.18 ± 5.73^a	61.67 ± 7.04^a
t	0.350	3.925	3.202
P value	0.728	< 0.001	0.002

^aP < 0.05 vs the pre-intervention level within the group.

Full Size Table

Table 5 Comparison of anal pressure index levels between the two groups, mean ± SD (mmHg)

Group	ARP		MSP
Group	Before	After	Before	After
Control group (n = 30)	37.51 ± 4.06	49.27 ± 5.13^a	95.37 ± 6.43	121.56 ± 8.17^a
Study group (n = 30)	37.26 ± 4.15	62.14 ± 5.08^a	94.86 ± 6.75	126.89 ± 9.04^a
t	0.236	9.764	0.300	2.396
P value	0.814	< 0.001	0.766	0.020

^aP < 0.05 vs the pre-intervention level within the group. ARP: Anal resting pressure; MSP: Maximum squeeze pressure.

Full Size Table

Table 6 Comparison of anal function between the two groups, mean ± SD

Group	Rectal sensation of stool volume (mL)		Maximum rectal tolerance (mL)		Rectal compliance (mL/kPa)
Group	Before	After	Before	After	Before	After
Control group (n = 30)	61.27 ± 4.95	67.53 ± 5.81^a	137.25 ± 11.61	164.17 ± 12.85^a	3.56 ± 0.61	4.83 ± 0.54^a
Study group (n = 30)	60.79 ± 5.13	71.39 ± 5.72^a	136.84 ± 12.15	171.78 ± 12.61^a	3.68 ± 0.57	5.36 ± 0.62^a
t	0.369	2.593	0.134	2.315	0.787	3.531
P value	0.714	0.012	0.894	0.024	0.434	0.001

^aP < 0.05 vs the pre-intervention level within the group.

Full Size Table

Table 7 Comparison of therapeutic efficacy between the two groups, n (%)

Group	Excellence	Effective	Invalid	Total effective rate
Control group (n = 30)	9 (30.00)	13 (43.33)	8 (26.67)	22 (73.33)
Study group (n = 30)	15 (50.00)	14 (46.67)	1 (3.33)	29 (96.67)
t				4.706
P value				0.030

Full Size Table

Citation: Weng XH, Huang Y. Non-surgical magnetic-electrical biofeedback improves anterior resection syndrome after sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(8): 121902
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i8/121902.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.121902

Weng XH, Huang Y. Non-surgical magnetic-electrical biofeedback improves anterior resection syndrome after sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(8): 121902 [DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.121902]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.