Skip to main content

Defecatory Dysfunction

Defecatory dysfunction or obstructed defecation is the inability to satisfactorily expel stool because of inadequate rectal propulsive forces, increased outlet resistance, or both.[1][2] It is the most common cause of medically refractory chronic constipation and is underrecognized because the symptoms overlap entirely with those of slow-transit and normal-transit constipation. When a physiologic diagnosis is needed, anorectal manometry is commonly paired with balloon expulsion; defecography can clarify discordant results or suspected structural disease.[1][3] An initial evaluation by a bowel-trained pelvic floor physical therapist need not await formal rectal testing or imaging.[19]

See the subsection landing for how defecatory dysfunction sits alongside chronic constipation and fecal incontinence.

Epidemiology​

For generic chronic-constipation prevalence, see Chronic Constipation — Epidemiology. The DD-specific numbers are:

  • Functional defecation disorders may affect 33–50% of patients with chronic constipation.[1][4][8]
  • In a meta-analysis of 79 studies (7,581 patients referred for physiologic testing), the median prevalence of any single abnormal finding associated with dyssynergic defecation was 37%; estimates depend on the test used (48% dyssynergic pattern on manometry; 15% absent anorectal-angle opening on defecography).[20] In one tertiary motility-center series of 230 patients, 22% had dyssynergic defecation and 55% had slow transit, with 13% having both.[21]
  • In the tertiary series above, 30 of 50 patients with dyssynergic defecation (60%) had slow transit.[21] Delayed colonic transit may be secondary to pelvic-floor dysfunction rather than primary colonic dysmotility.[2]

Pathophysiology​

Three mechanisms, usually in combination:[1][2]

  1. Inadequate rectal propulsion. Insufficient intra-abdominal or rectal pressure during attempted defecation
  2. Increased outlet resistance. Paradoxical contraction or failure of relaxation of the external anal sphincter and/or puborectalis during defecation; high anal resting pressure ("anismus")
  3. Structural or sensory contributors. Rectocele, rectal intussusception, excessive perineal descent, and rectal hyposensitivity that reduces the urge to defecate

Dyssynergia may involve learned maladaptive coordination; the broader syndrome includes structural, sensory and neurologic contributors. Repeated straining can weaken pelvic-floor support and increase the risk of excessive perineal descent, rectal intussusception, solitary rectal ulcer, and pudendal neuropathy. Pudendal neuropathy may contribute to sphincter-related fecal incontinence; stool retention or impaction can separately cause overflow leakage.[1][2][6]

Classification​

Rome IV — Functional Defecation Disorders​

The historical Rome IV framework requires qualifying functional constipation or IBS-C symptoms, plus impaired evacuation on two of three test categories: abnormal BET, abnormal evacuation pattern on manometry or surface EMG, and impaired evacuation on imaging. Symptoms must satisfy the relevant duration and frequency criteria; two isolated abnormal tests are insufficient.[7]

SubtypeDefinition
Dyssynergic defecationParadoxical contraction or inadequate relaxation of the pelvic floor muscles during attempted defecation with adequate propulsive force
Inadequate defecatory propulsionInsufficient propulsive force during attempted defecation, with or without sphincter / pelvic-floor dyssynergia

Rome V (2026) update​

Rome V lists dyssynergic defecation separately and adds rectal hypo- and hypersensitivity disorders. Rome V criteria require one or more difficult-evacuation symptoms with at least 25% of bowel movements over the past 3 months (onset at least 6 months earlier); one abnormal BET, manometry, or defecography test classifies probable dyssynergic defecation, while two or more abnormal tests classify definite dyssynergic defecation, and surface EMG is no longer a diagnostic criterion.[3] This broadens recognition of a possible disorder, while concordant testing and the clinical picture remain important when results are borderline or surgery is considered.[3][18]

High-resolution manometry patterns of dyssynergia​

The four historical manometric patterns describe rectal push and anal response, while Rome V removed type III, does not subclassify dyssynergic defecation, and requires symptoms plus an abnormal evacuation test for diagnosis.[3][8]

TypeRectal pushAnal response
IAdequateParadoxical contraction
IIInadequateParadoxical contraction
IIIAdequateImpaired / incomplete relaxation
IVInadequateImpaired relaxation

London Protocol framework​

The London classification of the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group groups the results of high-resolution anorectal manometry, the rectal sensory test and the balloon expulsion test into four parts: (1) disorders of the rectoanal inhibitory reflex; (2) disorders of anal tone and contractility; (3) disorders of anorectal coordination, including dyssynergia; and (4) disorders of rectal sensation (hyposensitivity or hypersensitivity). It describes test findings and complements the symptom-based Rome classification.[35]

Clinical Presentation​

Symptoms are indistinguishable from other constipation types, hence the diagnostic reliance on physiology. Classic features:[1]

  • Excessive straining
  • Sensation of anorectal blockage
  • Manual maneuvers (digitation, perineal or vaginal splinting)
  • Sensation of incomplete evacuation
  • Enema or suppository dependence
  • Hard stools and reduced frequency

Digital rectal exam​

The underused, high-yield bedside maneuver. In a tertiary referral cohort of 209 patients with chronic constipation (191 men, 18 women), DRE identified dyssynergia with 75% sensitivity, 87% specificity, and 97% PPV against physiologic criteria.[22]

Assess at rest, with squeeze, and during simulated defecation:

  • Anal tone at rest
  • Voluntary squeeze (external sphincter and puborectalis integrity)
  • Push or bear down. The sphincter should relax and the puborectalis should release the anorectal angle; paradoxical contraction or no relaxation suggests dyssynergia
  • Palpable stool, rectocele (push anteriorly), excessive perineal descent, prolapse on strain

Diagnostic Evaluation​

The first-line combination is anorectal manometry with a balloon expulsion test; defecography is useful for discordant results or suspected structural disease.[1][2]

TestWhat it measuresUse
Balloon expulsion test (BET)Time to expel a rectal balloon, often filled with 50 mL water; use device/protocol-specific normal limitsReproducible screen; ASCRS 2024 cites about 50% sensitivity and high specificity, whereas a 15-study meta-analysis estimated, among cohort studies of people with chronic constipation, 70% sensitivity and 77% specificity.[3][16][29]
High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRM)Resting / squeeze / push pressures, rectoanal inhibitory reflex, rectal sensationEvaluates rectoanal coordination and quantifies the rectoanal pressure gradient during push; I–IV patterns are historical descriptions, not Rome V subtypes.[3]
Defecography (fluoroscopic or MR)Structural anatomy and functional evacuation — rectocele trapping, intussusception, enterocele, perineal descentSecond-line when ARM/BET discordant, or when structural disease suspected[9]

Study-specific probabilities of impaired evacuation on defecography among the 158 of 474 patients selected for imaging:[10]

  • Both BET and rectoanal gradient abnormal: approximately 75% probability of impaired evacuation[10]
  • One abnormal: approximately 45% probability[10]
  • Both normal: approximately 14% probability; persistent suspicion may still warrant imaging[10]
  • Rome IV requires qualifying symptoms and two abnormal test categories; see the Rome V update above.[7]

Defecography can identify rectocele (anterior wall), enterocele (cul-de-sac hernia), and intussusception, and measure perineal descent. These findings inform decisions about biofeedback, rectocele repair, or rectopexy alongside symptoms, examination, and physiology.[11][16]

Management​

First: lifestyle and bowel-management baseline​

Optimize bowel-management basics while arranging biofeedback for symptomatic dyssynergia; laxative trials need not precede referral.[1][12][16][19]

  • Hydration and stool-form optimization (Bristol target approximately 4)
  • Routine post-meal toileting to exploit the gastrocolonic reflex; footstool for squat posture
  • Stopping constipating medications where possible
  • Fiber or an osmotic laxative for stool-form management when appropriate, with stimulant rescue as needed; these measures can accompany biofeedback.[16][19]

The full pharmacologic algorithm (AGA/ACG 2023 stepwise management, secretagogues, 5-HT4 agonists) is covered in Chronic Constipation.[1] Up to 50% of defecatory-dysfunction patients have coexistent slow transit.[1] Treat the outlet first. Slow transit may improve after evacuation is restored. In patients with coexisting slow transit or IBS-C, laxatives or secretagogues may relieve bowel symptoms alongside biofeedback; these drugs have not been shown to correct dyssynergia.[1][2][30]

Second: anorectal biofeedback therapy (the cornerstone)​

For dyssynergic defecation, anorectal biofeedback is first-line treatment, alongside stool-form optimization and management of coexisting disorders.[1][5][13] The ASCRS 2024 guideline gives this a strong recommendation on moderate-quality evidence.[16]

Goals:

  • Coordinate abdominal push with pelvic-floor or sphincter relaxation (not simultaneous contraction)
  • Improve diaphragmatic push mechanics
  • Rectal sensory retraining for hyposensitivity
  • Balloon-expulsion retraining

Delivery: EMG- or manometry-guided feedback can extend over weeks to months; bowel-trained therapists tailor the modality and visit count to response. The 2026 Pelvic Floor Consortium generally expected 4–6 sessions before symptom change, without endorsing a fixed course.[19] Periodic reinforcement after initial training helps sustain the effect. ASCRS 2024 cites a seven-trial review (413 patients).[16] Across three trials comparing biofeedback with other treatments, the review found higher odds of treatment success (OR 5.86); four other trials compared biofeedback modalities.[31] The trials were heterogeneous, and the 2026 consensus below finds insufficient evidence to favor one technique.[19]

Evidence:

  • Chiarioni 2006 RCT (109 patients with normal-transit constipation due to pelvic-floor dyssynergia who had failed fiber plus laxatives, enemas, or suppositories): at 6 months, 43 of 54 (80%) rated their symptom improvement as major after five weekly biofeedback sessions versus 12 of 55 (22%) on polyethylene glycol plus counseling (P < .001); biofeedback benefit persisted at 12 and 24 months, while the PEG comparator was assessed only through 12 months.[23]
  • Rao 2007 RCT (77 patients, 3 months): manometric biofeedback was superior to both sham feedback and standard therapy for correcting dyssynergia, defecation index and balloon expulsion time, with more complete spontaneous bowel movements and less digital maneuvering.[24]
  • Across RCTs, major improvement is reported in roughly 70–80% of biofeedback patients, and long-term follow-up studies find 55–82% maintain improvement.[5]
  • The 2026 Pelvic Floor Consortium consensus calls biofeedback a best practice for obstructed defecation, supported by multiple randomized trials, and finds insufficient evidence to favor one biofeedback technique over another, so the pelvic floor physical therapist chooses the modality (statement 7).[19]

In a cohort of 131 patients with refractory chronic constipation who failed balloon expulsion, nonuse of manual maneuvers, reporting the anal muscles as the source of straining, and impaired abdominal contraction or anal relaxation on augmented DRE were associated with response to biofeedback at 1 month in univariate analyses; only nonuse of manual maneuvers and impaired abdominal contraction remained independently associated with response, defined by at least one additional complete spontaneous bowel movement per week and a defecation-quality rating of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale.[14]

Third: botulinum toxin​

For biofeedback non-responders with a nonrelaxing puborectalis:[1][15]

  • Published onabotulinumtoxinA regimens vary; 100 U into the puborectalis and external sphincter is one studied protocol, not an established universal dose.[16]
  • Symptom response at initial assessment (1 week to 2 months) varied across studies (29–100%); toxin effects generally waned around 3–4 months, although some studies reported sustained improvement at 12 months.[15] ASCRS 2024 gives a conditional recommendation on low-quality evidence for nonrelaxing puborectalis.[15][16] In one observational cohort of 31 biofeedback non-responders, 100 U into the puborectalis and external sphincter followed by biofeedback allowed 23 (74.2%) to expel the balloon.[16]
  • In the 2020 review (11 studies, 248 patients, three RCTs), adverse effects ranged from 0% to 70%, most often flatus and fecal incontinence.[15] A 2023 meta-analysis found more incontinence than with biofeedback; pooled symptom improvement was 66.4% in the short term and 38.2% beyond 12 months.[27]
  • A retrospective series of 31 patients with anismus unresponsive to biofeedback reported success in 24 after botulinum toxin injection plus biofeedback, with 23 maintaining satisfaction over a mean 8.4 months.[33]
  • The overall evidence base is low quality (heterogeneous doses, outcomes, and designs)

Surgical considerations​

Surgery addresses structural contributors.[1][16] Before surgery for constipation is considered, the ASCRS 2024 guideline strongly recommends measuring colonic motility and transit (low-quality evidence).[16]

PathologySurgical optionKey caveat
Rectocele — symptomatic outlet dysfunction with a clinically significant rectocele on vaginal examination; imaging can clarify stool trapping or coexisting abnormalitiesTransvaginal posterior repair or another individualized approach; >5 cm alone does not determine surgery[1], and functional results varyAddress coexisting dyssynergia before surgery. ASCRS 2024 conditionally recommends repair on moderate-quality evidence and reports variable success of 50% to 100% with no clearly superior route. A 2026 IUGA opinion supports native-tissue transvaginal repair as a first-line surgical option for selected women with stage 2 or greater clinically evident rectocele and obstructed defecation .[16][28]
Rectal intussusceptionVentral mesh rectopexy, DelormeASCRS 2024 allows repair only for severe obstructed defecation after failed nonoperative treatment (conditional, low-quality evidence).[16] Anatomy may be corrected without symptom improvement. The 2026 Pelvic Floor Consortium consensus recommends offering pelvic floor PT before surgery for high-grade intussusception with obstructed defecation and discourages surgery for low-grade intussusception unless all other therapies have failed.[19] In a single-operator randomized trial of 112 elderly patients with obstructed defecation from structural abnormalities (nonrelaxing puborectalis excluded), laparoscopic ventral rectopexy and STARR each gave >50% improvement in obstructed-defecation score at 6 months (73% vs 82%, NS), but symptom recurrence at a mean 41 months was 7% vs 24% (P = 0.04)[25]
Full-thickness rectal prolapseAbdominal rectopexy ± resectionReferral to colorectal surgery. ASCRS 2017 states that prolapse cannot be corrected nonoperatively. It advises transabdominal rectal fixation in patients with acceptable risk , and allows sigmoid resection with suture rectopexy when constipation is present (strong, moderate, 1B). Posterior mobilization without rectopexy is typically not recommended (strong, moderate, 1B)[26]
STARR (stapled transanal rectal resection)Guidelines differ: ASCRS 2024 strongly recommends against STARR for rectocele or internal intussusception repair (moderate-quality evidence); SIUCP 2026 conditionally considers STARR (2B, moderate-quality evidence) in selected patients with severe obstructed defecation, failed conservative care, treated or excluded functional disorders, and Oxford grade ≥3 intussusception on defecography.[16][32]Complication rates of 10–78% across series: bleeding, infection, pain, fecal urgency, incontinence, rectovaginal fistula, anastomotic leak, urinary retention[16]
Sacral neuromodulation for constipationStudied in refractory idiopathic slow-transit constipationIn an open-label randomized trial of 67 patients that excluded outlet obstruction, 22/41 assigned neuromodulation versus 1/26 assigned personalized conservative treatment averaged at least three defecations per week at 6 months.[34]

Refractory defecatory dysfunction​

The AGA 2026 update advises assessment before labeling chronic constipation refractory.[17]

  1. Most patients should undergo ARM with BET
  2. Complete pelvic-floor biofeedback when indicated
  3. Review secondary causes and adequate medical trials; document transit and consider defecography as appropriate

Persistent symptoms then prompt mechanism-specific reassessment. Colectomy is considered only for confirmed refractory slow transit without an ongoing defecatory disorder.

Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy Consensus (2026)​

A consensus of the ASCRS, ICS, IUGA, AUGS and APTA Pelvic Floor Consortium produced 15 statements, each with more than 70% agreement. The recommendations mainly reflect expert consensus because high-quality comparative evidence is limited, and they assume access to a therapist with bowel-specific training.[19]

  • Referral. Prompt referral to a properly trained pelvic floor physical therapist is recommended for obstructed defecation after other pathology and barriers to active participation are excluded (statement 1).[19] A formal diagnosis by rectal testing or imaging is not required before the initial evaluation (statement 3).[19] Test findings can serve as treatment targets and can prioritize referrals when access is limited (statement 4).[19]
  • Course of therapy. Goals are set with the patient, and no consensus was reached on a set number of visits. The experts agreed that 4 to 6 sessions are generally needed to see a change in symptoms, and that reevaluation or further testing is unlikely to alter management before at least 8 sessions (statement 5).[19]
  • Trauma-informed care. Every pelvic floor examination should be trauma-informed. When known or suspected trauma could make testing distressing, referral before anorectal manometry or defecography is considered appropriate (statement 6).[19]
  • Rectocele. Women with posterior vaginal wall prolapse, obstructed defecation and increased pelvic floor tone or dyssynergia should have pelvic floor PT before rectocele surgery (statement 11).[19] When tone is decreased, PT can be offered before or after surgery (statement 12).[19]
  • External rectal prolapse. Timely surgery is the recommended first-line treatment; PT is considered after surgery for persistent symptoms and before surgery only if it does not delay it (statement 13).[19]
  • Internal prolapse. For high-grade intussusception with obstructed defecation, offer pelvic floor PT before considering surgery; if symptoms persist after the initial PT program and surgery, consider postoperative PT (statement 14).[19] Low-grade intussusception and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome are treated with PT from a bowel-trained therapist, and surgery is strongly discouraged unless all other therapies have failed (statement 15).[19]

Pearls for the Reconstructive Pelvic Surgeon​

  • A careful DRE with simulated defecation is the single most informative office maneuver. Do it before offering any posterior-compartment surgery.
  • When rectocele and dyssynergia coexist, address coordination before deciding whether a residual structural problem warrants repair.
  • Anorectal biofeedback specifically trains evacuation coordination; a PFPT referral should state the diagnosis and treatment goals.[1]
  • Slow transit often improves after the outlet is restored. Resist the urge to escalate prokinetics before the outlet has been properly addressed.
  • Overflow fecal incontinence can result from stool retention or impaction; evaluate constipation and possible outlet dysfunction while addressing the leakage. See Fecal Incontinence for the phenotype split and management.[2]

See Also​

References​

1. Wald A, Bharucha AE, Limketkai B, et al. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Management of Benign Anorectal Disorders." Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(10):1987-2008. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001507

2. Bharucha AE, Lacy BE. "Mechanisms, Evaluation, and Management of Chronic Constipation." Gastroenterology. 2020;158(5):1232-1249.e3. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.034

3. Rao SSC, Bharucha AE, Carrington EV, et al. "Anorectal Disorders." Gastroenterology. 2026. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.037

4. Sadler K, Arnold F, Dean S. "Chronic Constipation in Adults." Am Fam Physician. 2022;106(3):299-306. PMID 36126011

5. Skardoon GR, Khera AJ, Emmanuel AV, Burgell RE. "Dyssynergic Defaecation and Biofeedback Therapy in the Pathophysiology and Management of Functional Constipation." Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46(4):410-423. doi:10.1111/apt.14174

6. Heitmann PT, Vollebregt PF, Knowles CH, et al. "Understanding the Physiology of Human Defaecation and Disorders of Continence and Evacuation." Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(11):751-769. doi:10.1038/s41575-021-00487-5

7. Rao SS, Bharucha AE, Chiarioni G, et al. "Functional Anorectal Disorders." Gastroenterology. 2016. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.009

8. Lalwani N, El Sayed RF, Kamath A, et al. "Imaging and Clinical Assessment of Functional Defecatory Disorders With Emphasis on Defecography." Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(4):1323-1333. doi:10.1007/s00261-019-02142-9

9. Khatri G, Bhosale PR, Robbins JB, et al. "ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Females." J Am Coll Radiol. 2022;19(5S):S137-S155. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2022.02.016

10. Blackett JW, Gautam M, Mishra R, et al. "Comparison of Anorectal Manometry, Rectal Balloon Expulsion Test, and Defecography for Diagnosing Defecatory Disorders." Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1582-1592.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2022.08.034

11. Zoabi N, Zelikovich D, Kanani F, et al. "Integrating Anorectal Manometry, Balloon Expulsion and Defecography: Insights Into Diagnosing Pelvic Floor Dysfunction." Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2025. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00100.2025

12. Chang L, Chey WD, Imdad A, et al. "AGA–ACG Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation." Gastroenterology. 2023;164(7):1086-1106. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2023.03.214

13. Lee HJ, Jung KW, Myung SJ. "Technique of Functional and Motility Test: How to Perform Biofeedback for Constipation and Fecal Incontinence." J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;19(4):532-7. doi:10.5056/jnm.2013.19.4.532

14. Lambiase C, Bellini M, Whitehead WE, et al. "Biofeedback Efficacy for Outlet Dysfunction Constipation: Clinical Outcomes and Predictors of Response by a Limited Approach." Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2025;37(1):e14948. doi:10.1111/nmo.14948

15. Chaichanavichkij P, Vollebregt PF, Scott SM, Knowles CH. "Botulinum Toxin Type A for the Treatment of Dyssynergic Defaecation in Adults: A Systematic Review." Colorectal Dis. 2020;22(12):1832-1841. doi:10.1111/codi.15120

16. Alavi K, Thorsen AJ, Fang SH, et al. "ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Constipation." Dis Colon Rectum. 2024;67(10):1244-1257. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000003430

17. Staller K, Neshatian L, Lembo A, Bharucha AE. "AGA Clinical Practice Update on Evaluation and Management of Refractory Constipation: Expert Review." Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2026;24(2):296-305. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2025.09.031

18. Drossman DA, Chang L, Tack J. Disorders of gut-brain interaction and the Rome V process. Gastroenterology. 2026;170:1083–1098. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.02.014.

19. Traugott AL, Barten J, Bordeianou L, et al. Incorporating pelvic floor physical therapy in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome and posterior compartment pelvic organ and rectal prolapse: proceedings of the consensus meeting of the Pelvic Floor Consortium. Dis Colon Rectum. 2026. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000003993. Published concurrently in Int Urogynecol J. 2026; doi:10.1007/s00192-026-06549-z.

20. Videlock EJ, Lembo A, Cremonini F. "Diagnostic testing for dyssynergic defecation in chronic constipation: meta-analysis." Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(6):509-20. doi:10.1111/nmo.12096

21. Tanner S, Chaudhry A, Goraya N, et al. "Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Dyssynergic Defecation and Slow Transit Constipation in Patients with Chronic Constipation." J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):2027. doi:10.3390/jcm10092027

22. Tantiphlachiva K, Rao P, Attaluri A, Rao SS. "Digital rectal examination is a useful tool for identifying patients with dyssynergia." Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(11):955-60. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2010.06.031

23. Chiarioni G, Whitehead WE, Pezza V, Morelli A, Bassotti G. "Biofeedback is superior to laxatives for normal transit constipation due to pelvic floor dyssynergia." Gastroenterology. 2006;130(3):657-64. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.014

24. Rao SS, Seaton K, Miller M, et al. "Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback, sham feedback, and standard therapy for dyssynergic defecation." Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(3):331-8. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2006.12.023

25. Madbouly KM, Mohii AD. "Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy Versus Stapled Transanal Rectal Resection for Treatment of Obstructed Defecation in the Elderly: Long-term Results of a Prospective Randomized Study." Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(1):47-55. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000001256

26. Bordeianou L, Paquette I, Johnson E, et al. "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Rectal Prolapse." Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(11):1121-1131. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000889

27. Chu CY, Su YC, Hsieh PC, Lin YC. "Effectiveness and safety of botulinum neurotoxin for treating dyssynergic defecation: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Toxicon. 2023;235:107311. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2023.107311

28. Rachaneni S, Dietz HP, Latthe P, Sirany A, Spivak A, Dua A. "IUGA Opinion Paper on Obstructed Defecation: Management of Clinical and Proctographic Rectoceles." Int Urogynecol J. 2026;37(1):75-85. doi:10.1007/s00192-025-06288-7

29. Shah ED, Farida JD, Menees S, Baker JR, Chey WD. "Examining Balloon Expulsion Testing as an Office-Based, Screening Test for Dyssynergic Defecation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(11):1613-1620. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0230-5

30. Rao SSC, Patcharatrakul T. "Diagnosis and Treatment of Dyssynergic Defecation." J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;22(3):423-435. doi:10.5056/jnm16060

31. Koh CE, Young CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ. "Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the effectiveness of biofeedback for pelvic floor dysfunction." Br J Surg. 2008;95(9):1079-1087. doi:10.1002/bjs.6303

32. Renzi A, Brusciano L, Talento P, et al. "The Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (SIUCP: Società Italiana Unitaria di Colonproctologia) guidelines for the management of obstructed and ineffective defecation syndrome." Ann Coloproctol. 2026;42(2):151-178. doi:10.3393/ac.2025.00899.0128

33. Zhang Y, Wang ZN, He L, et al. "Botulinum toxin type-A injection to treat patients with intractable anismus unresponsive to simple biofeedback training." World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(35):12602-12607. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i35.12602

34. Heemskerk SCM, Dirksen CD, van Kuijk SMJ, et al. "Sacral Neuromodulation Versus Conservative Treatment for Refractory Idiopathic Slow-transit Constipation: The Randomized Clinical No.2-Trial." Ann Surg. 2024;279(5):746-754. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006158

35. Carrington EV, Heinrich H, Knowles CH, et al. "The international anorectal physiology working group (IAPWG) recommendations: Standardized testing protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function." Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;32(1):e13679. doi:10.1111/nmo.13679