4.4 Article

Rheology of human faeces and pathophysiology of defaecation

Journal

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 323-329

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-020-02174-0

Keywords

Defaecation; X-ray defaecography; Rheology; Yield stress

Funding

  1. LabEx Tec 21 (Investissements d'Avenir) [ANR-11-LABX-0030]
  2. Institut Carnot PolyNat (Investissements d'Avenir) [ANR-11-CARN-030-01]
  3. Labex Tec21

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Rectal evacuation involves multiple mechanisms that are not completely understood. The aim of this study was to quantify the rheologic property, i.e., yield stress, which governs the ease of deformation of a range of faeces of differing consistency and understand its influence on the pathophysiology of defaecation. Methods Yield stresses of faeces of differing consistencies and Bristol scores were determined by the Vane test. We then explored the effects of this property on ease of defecation using a simple static model of the recto-anal junction based on the laws of flow for yield stress pastes and checked the conclusions by X-ray defaecography experience. Results The yield stress of faeces increased exponentially with their solid content, from 20 to 8000 Pa. The static model of the recto-anal junction showed that evacuation of faeces of normal consistency and yield stress is possible with moderate dilatation of the anal canal, whilst the evacuation of faeces with higher yield stress requires greater dilatation of the anal canal. X-ray defaecography showed that such increases occurred in vivo. Conclusions The diameter of the recto-anal junction is increased to enable the passage of feces with high yield stress. The finite limits to such dilation likely contribute to fecal impaction. Hence, difficulties in defaecation may result either from unduly high yield stress or pathologies of reflex recto-anal dilatation or a combination of the two.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available