Patients’ views of medical positioning for proctologic examination

Abstract

Background:

It is unknown which proctological position is most embarrassing to patients.

Methods:

Individuals consecutively referred to our outpatient clinic in order to determine the causes of anal and/or abdominal complaints were randomized to complete an unvalidated six-item questionnaire which asked for their preferred proctologic positioning either before or after a proctological examination in knee–chest position followed by inspection of the anal verge, digital examination of the anal canal, and anoscopy. A third group of patients referred for gastroscopy was asked to complete the questionnaire before being gastroscoped.

Results:

One hundred seventy-eight individuals of both genders aged 16–80 years who consecutively entered our outpatient clinic were enrolled. One third in each group had never experienced any of the offered medical positionings. Most patients favored the Sims’ position if they had the choice. Randomized patients favored the knee–chest position more after experiencing it compared to those without experience (P < 0.03). Patients favored the positions they had recently experienced irrespective of the other positions offered in the questionnaire (P < 0.05). Individual answers to the question ‘which position do you find most embarrassing?’ did not depend on sex or age at first examination or when their last examination was performed. The majority of patients (55.2%–71.4%) held that no type of proctological positioning was most embarrassing to them.

Conclusions:

The medical profession is authorized to use the proctological positioning that allows the most reliable anal diagnoses.

Keywords:

• anal bleeding
• anal itch
• anal pain
• proctological positioning
• pruritus ani
• hemorrhoids
• benign anal diseases

Disclosures

HR had the idea. All authors contributed to the design of the study. OG was responsible for literature research. OG and HR saw the patients and asked them to complete the questionnaire. Findings were ticked into a PC study documentation sheet after medical assessment of each patient. Results were discussed with all authors. YH was responsible for statistical evaluations. OG wrote the first drafts which were revised by all authors. HR wrote the final drafts. Prof. Ken Newton, edited the final draft of the manuscript. There are no conflicts of interests. The study was sponsored by the authors themselves. There were no financial or nonfinancial competing interests (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other). The authors disclose no funding sources including the writing of the manuscript and the decision to submit it for publication, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, study design, patient recruitment or any aspect pertinent to the study. None of us has been paid to write the article. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.