Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 117–121 | Cite as

Influence of body posture on defecation: a prospective study of “The Thinker” position

  • S. Takano
  • D. R. Sands
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

We hypothesized that bending the upper body into what we have termed “The Thinker” position facilitates defecation. This study aimed to assess the influence of “The Thinker” position on defecation.

Methods

This is the prospective single-group study. Patients who could not evacuate the paste in normal sitting position on cinedefecography between January and June 2013 were enrolled in this study. Cinedefecography was first performed in the sitting position; if the patient was unable to evacuate the paste, images were obtained in “The Thinker” position. Patients who were able to evacuate the paste were excluded from the study. Anorectal angle (ARA), perineal plane distance (PPD), and puborectalis length (PRL) during straining in both positions were measured from the radiographs.

Results

Twenty-two patients unable to evacuate the barium paste underwent cinedefecography in “The Thinker” position. Seventeen patients were female, average age of 56 (range 22–76) years. “The Thinker” position had significantly wider ARA than the sitting position (113° vs. 134°, respectively; p = 0.03), larger PPD (7.1 vs. 9.3 cm, respectively; p = 0.02), and longer PRL (12.9 vs. 15.2 cm, respectively; p = 0.005) during straining. Eleven patients could evacuate completely in “The Thinker” position.

Conclusion

“The Thinker” position seems to be a more efficient method for defecation than the sitting position. This technique may be helpful when retraining patients with constipation.

Keywords

Defecation posture Defecography Anorectal angle Constipation Fecal outlet obstruction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Sikirov D (2003) Comparison of straining during defecation in three positions: results and implications for human health. Dig Dis Sci 48:1201–1205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rad S (2002) Impact of ethnic habit on defecographic measurements. Arch Iran Med 5:115–117Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsuchino M, Yamashita K, Boda T et al (2008) A study of the relationship between continence function and defecatory posture. J Jpn Soc Stoma Cont Rehabil 24:34–38Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drossman DA (2006) The functional gastrointestinal disorders and the Rome III process. Gastroenterology 130:1377–1390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Rosato GO, Sullivan ML, Jagelman DG (1992) How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle? Dis Colon Rectum 35:332–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Luth WJ, Janssen JJ, Meuwissen SG (1990) Defecography in patients with anorectal disorders. Which findings are clinically relevant? Dis Colon Rectum 33:277–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jorge JM, Ger GC, Gonzalez Wexmer SD (1994) Patient position during cinedefecography. Influence on perineal descent and other measurements. Dis Colon Rectum 37:927–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD, Ehrenpreis ED, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG (1993) Does perineal descent correlate with pudendal neuropathy? Dis Colon Rectum 36:475–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Habib FI, Corazziari E, Viscardi Badiali D, Torsoli A (1992) Role of body position, gender, and age on pelvic floor location and mobility. Dig Dis Sci 37:500–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haubruch W (1985) Constipation. In: Berk J (ed) Bockus gastroenterology, 4th edn, Saunders, Philadelphia, p 111Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boles R (1927) Constipation. JAMA 89:1766–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singer C (1958) History of technology. The industrial revolution, Oxford, pp 507–508Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tagart RE (1966) The anal canal and rectum: their varying relationship and its effect on anal continence. Dis Colon Rectum 9:449–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Veglia A, Guglielmi A, Sallustio PL, Tripoli G (2001) Contribution of posture to the maintenance of anal continence. Int J Colorectal Dis 16:51–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao SS, Kavlock R, Rao S (2006) Influence of body position and stool characteristics on defecation in humans. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2790–2796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martelli H, Devroede G, Arhan P, Duguay C (1978) Mechanisms of idiopathic constipation: outlet obstruction. Gastroenterology 75:623–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parks A (1975) Anorectal incontinence. Proc R Soc Med 68:21–30Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parks AG, Porter NH, Hardcastle J (1966) The syndrome of the descending perineum. Proc R Soc Med 59:477–482PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Preston D (1983) Neuropathology of stow-transit constipation. Gut 24:997AGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swash M (1988) Pelvic floor outlet and sphincter disorders. Ital J Gastroenterol 20:344–347Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alves-Ferreira PC, Gurland B, Zutshi M, Hull T (2012) Perineal descent does not imply a more severe clinical disorder. Colorectal Dis 14:1372–1379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia Srl 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA

Personalised recommendations