AIM:To determine the efficacy and long-term outcome ofbiofeedback treatment for chronic idiopathic constipationand to compare the efficacy of two modes of biofeedback(EMG-based and manometry-based biofeedback).METHODS:Fifty consecutive contactable patients included8 cases of slow transit constipation,36 cases of anorecticoutlet obstruction and 6 cases of mixed constipation.Twomodes of biofeedback were used for these 50 patients,30 ofwhom had EMG-based biofeedback,and 20 had manometry-based biofeedback.Before treatment,a consultation andphysical examination were done for all the patients,relatedinformation such as bowel function and gut transit time wasdocumented,psychological test (symptom checklist 90,SCL90)and anorectic physiological test and defecography wereapplied.After biofeedback management,all the patients werefollowed up.The Student’s t-test,chi-squared test and Logisticregression were used for statistical analysis.RESULTS:The period of following up ranged from 12 to 24months (Median 18 months).70 % of patients felt thatbiofeedback was helpful,and 62.5 % of patients withconstipation were improved.Clinical manifestations includingstraining,abdominal pain,bloating,were relieved,and lessoral laxative was used.Spontaneous bowel frequency andpsychological state were improved significantly aftertreatment.Patients with slow and normal transit,and thosewith and without paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincteron straining,benefited equally from the treatment.Thepsychological status rather than anorectal test could predictoutcome.The efficacy of the two modes of biofeedbackwas similar without side effects.CONCLUSION:This study suggests that biofeedback hasa long-term effect with no side effects,for the majority ofpatients with chronic idiopathic constipation unresponsiveto traditional treatment.Pelvic floor abnormalities and transittime should not be the selection criteria for treatment. AIM: To determine the efficacy and long-term outcome of biofeedback treatment for chronic idiopathic constipation and to compare the efficacy of two modes of biofeedback (EMG-based and manometry-based biofeedback). METHODS: Fifty consecutive contactable patients included 8 cases of slow transit constipation, 36 cases of anorecticoutlet obstruction and 6 cases of mixed constipation. Patients of biofeedback were used for these 50 patients, 30 ofwh had had EMG-based biofeedback, and 20 had manometry-based biofeedback. Prior treatment, a consultation and physical examination were done for all the patients, related information such as bowel function and gut transit time was done, psychological test (symptom checklist 90, SCL90) and anorectic physiological test and defecography wereapplied. After biofeedback management, all the patients werefollowed up.The Student’s t-test, chi-squared test and Logisticregression were used for statistical analysis .RESULTS: The period of following up ranged from 12 to 24months (Median 18 months) .70% of patients felt that biofeedback was helpful, and 62.5% of patients with con-stipation were improved. Clinical manifestations including straining, abdominal pain, bloating, were relieved, and lessoral laxative was used. Spontaneous bowel frequency andpsychological state were improved significantly aftertreatment. Patients with slow and normal transit, and thosewith and without paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincter strangulation, benefited equally from the treatment. The psychological status rather than anorectal test could predict out the. The efficacy of the two modes of biofeedback is similar without side effects. CONCLUSION : This study suggests that biofeedback hasa long-term effect with no side effects, for the majority of patients with chronic idiopathic constipation unresponsiveto traditional treatment. Pelvic floor abnormalities and transittime should not be the selection criteria for treatment.