Fecobionics assessment of the effect of position on defecatory efficacy in normal subjects.

BACKGROUND: Defecation is a complex process and up to 25% of the population suffer from symptoms of defecatory dysfunction. For functional testing, diagnostics, and therapy of anorectal disorders, it is important to know the optimal defecation position. is The aim of this study was to evaluate defecation pressure patterns in side lying, seated and squatting defecation positions in normal subjects using a simulated stool device called Fecobionics.
METHODS: The Fecobionics expulsion parameters were assessed in an interventional study design conducted from May 29 to December 9 2019. Subjects were invited to participate in the study through advertisement at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The Fecobionics device consisted of a core containing pressure sensors at the front (caudal end) and rear (cranial end) and a polyester-urethane bag spanning most of the core length which also contained sensors. The Fecobionics bag was distended to 50 ml in the rectum of normal subjects (no present and past symptoms of defecatory disorders, no prior abdominal surgery, medication or chronic diseases). Studies were done in side lying (left lateral recumbent position), seated (hip flexed 90°) and squatting position (hip flexed 25°). Pressure endpoints including the rear-front pressure diagram and defecation indices were compared between positions.
RESULTS: Twelve subjects (6 females/6 males, mean age 26.3 ± 2.6 [19.0-48.0] years) were included and underwent the planned procedures. The resting anal pressure for side lying and seated positions were 33.1 ± 4.1 cmH2O and 37.1 ± 4.0 cmH2O (p > 0.3). The anal squeeze pressure for side lying and seated positions were 98.4 ± 6.9 cmH2O and 142.3 ± 16.4 cmH2O (p < 0.05). The expulsion duration for the side lying, seated and squatting positions were 108.9 ± 8.3 s, 15.0 ± 2.1 s and 16.1 ± 2.9 s, respectively (p < 0.01 between lying and the two other positions). The maximum evacuation pressure for seated and squatting were 130.1 ± 12.4 cmH2O and 134.0 ± 11.1 cmH2O (p > 0.5). Rear-front pressure diagrams and distensibility indices demonstrated distinct differences in pressure patterns between the side lying position group and the other positions.
CONCLUSIONS: The delay in expelling the Fecobionics device in the lying position was associated with dyssynergic pressure patterns on the device. Quantitative differences were not found between the seated and squatting position. Trial Registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03317938.