Effects of Upper Trunk Flexion on Ventilation Volume in Semi-Fowler’s Position: Cross-Sectional Study
=======================================================================================================
* Sayuki Miyashita
* Satoshi Kubota
* Takuya Furudate
## ABSTRACT
**Introduction** Semi-Fowler’s position with the trunk raised 30° from supine improves respiratory function and reduces cardiovascular stress. Upper trunk flexion’s effects on ventilation remain uninvestigated despite known cardiovascular benefits.
**Objective** To compare ventilation volumes between semi-Fowler’s position with upper trunk flexion (UT30) and whole trunk elevation (WT30) in a cross-sectional study.
**Methods** Fourteen healthy young women participated. Ventilation parameters were measured in supine (SPIN), UT30, and WT30 positions. Tidal volume, minute ventilation, respiratory rate, RR intervals, and subjective breathing difficulty were assessed and analyzed using linear mixed models. **Results:** Both UT30 and WT30 showed significantly higher tidal volume than SPIN (p<0.05).
Minute ventilation was significantly higher in UT30 compared to SPIN. RRi was significantly lower in WT30 compared to SPIN, with no difference between UT30 and SPIN.
**Conclusion** Upper trunk flexion improves ventilation volume similar to whole trunk elevation while maintaining cardiovascular stability, potentially benefiting patients requiring respiratory support with minimal hemodynamic compromise.
**KEY POINTS** This study investigates the effect of upper trunk flexion in a semi-Fowler’s position on ventilation volume, comparing it with a conventional semi-Fowler’s position that raises the entire trunk.
Upper trunk flexion in a semi-Fowler’s position resulted in a significant increase in tidal volume, comparable to that achieved by raising the entire trunk. This suggests that upper trunk flexion can effectively enhance ventilation volume without fully elevating the trunk.
Upper trunk flexion offers a simple yet effective intervention to improve ventilation in clinical settings, particularly beneficial for patients who cannot tolerate full Fowler’s positioning.
KEYWORDS
* Semi-Fowler’s position
* Tidal Volume
* Minute Ventilation
* Posture
* Respiratory Function
## 1. INTRODUCTION
Fowler’s position and Semi-Fowler’s position, which involve raising the trunk from supine, are commonly used in clinical settings to improve respiratory function and reduce cardiovascular stress (Carol A Rauen, Mary Beth Flynn Makic 2009; Kubota et al. 2015, 2017; Mary Jo Grap 2005). Fowler’s position typically raises the trunk 45-60°, while Semi-Fowler’s position involves a more moderate elevation of 30-45°. Kubota et al. demonstrated that flexing the upper trunk in a Fowler’s position results in less reduction in stroke volume and less increase in heart rate compared to the conventional Fowler’s position that raises the entire trunk(Kubota et al. 2015, 2017). On the other hand, a trunk posture within the Fowler’s position or Semi-Fowler’s position that minimizes respiratory stress has not been proposed.
During quiet breathing, it has been reported that tidal volume and minute ventilation increase when the trunk is raised(Agostoni and Robert E Hyatt 2011; Romei et al. 2010). This occurs due to changes in diaphragm shape and movement associated with gravitational changes on the trunk. In the supine position, gravity causes abdominal organs to spread toward the thoracic cavity.
Consequently, diaphragmatic movement is restricted, and thoracic volume decreases. In contrast, in the upright sitting position, gravity causes the abdominal organs to move downward, resulting in a lowered diaphragm and increased thoracic volume. Therefore, ventilation volume is greater in Fowler’s position compared to the supine position. Additionally, abdominal wall tension may affect respiratory function through its influence on intra-abdominal pressure(Goldman, Silver, and Lehr 1986; Novak et al. 2021). This study aimed to investigate the effects of upper trunk flexion in a Semi-Fowler’s position on ventilation volume, hypothesizing that it would reduce abdominal wall tension and thereby improve respiratory function.
## 2. METHOD
This study employed a cross-sectional experimental design with repeated measures to compare ventilation parameters across three different postural conditions.
### 2.1 Participants
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of International University of Health and Welfare (approval number: 21-lg-16). Healthy young women were recruited through convenience sampling. Exclusion criteria included respiratory or cardiovascular diseases, low back pain, and obesity. Of 15 participants initially measured, one was excluded due to equipment malfunction, resulting in 14 participants for analysis (age, 20.57 ± 0.73 years; height, 162.07 ± 5.4 cm; weight, 53.13 ± 5.57 kg; BMI, 20.19 ± 1.46kg/m2).
### 2.2 Experimental Procedure
Participants were positioned in three postures: supine (SPIN) and two semi-Fowler’s positions at 30° - 30° upper trunk flexion (UT30) and 30° whole trunk elevation (WT30) (Figure 1). This study employed 30° semi-Fowler’s positions rather than Fowler’s positions exceeding 30°, as lower-angle semi-Fowler’s positions (around 30°) are commonly used for frail patients(Carol A Rauen, Mary Beth Flynn Makic 2009; Grap et al. 2005; Mary Jo Grap 2005; Zhu et al. 2020). Postures were achieved using a hospital bed, positioning cushions and mattress. For WT30, participants were asked to sit as deeply as possible on the bed. For UT30, following Kubota et al.’s method, trunk flexion was adjusted at the tenth thoracic vertebra(Kubota et al. 2015). During both UT30 and WT30 positions, participants were instructed to maintain their knees in slight flexion.
[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2025/03/21/2025.03.10.25323643/F1)
Figure 1.
Bed positions for each condition SPIN: Supine.
UT30: Lower and upper trunk inclined at 0° and 30°. Segments were subdivided based on the spinous process of 10th thoracic vertebra.
WT30: Lower and upper trunk inclined at 30°.
A preliminary experiment was conducted on a separate day to allow participants to become accustomed to breathing while wearing the ventilation measurement mask. Participants were instructed to avoid strenuous exercise, caffeine, alcohol consumption, and food intake after dinner the day before the experiment, and to completely refrain from food and drink for 2 hours before the experiment. The laboratory temperature was maintained at 28°C, within the thermoneutral zone, based on previous research(Kubota et al. 2017, 2022). Participants were asked to wear sleeveless tops and shorts, with properly fitted, non-constrictive bras to avoid chest compression.
Measurements began after a 15-minute rest in supine position. Each position was measured for 5 minutes with 10-minute rest periods between. Measurement order was randomized to eliminate order effects.
Ventilation volumes were measured using a ventilation measurement mask and a pneumotachograph. Electrocardiogram (ECG) data were collected using an ECG module. Data acquisition was performed with Personal Computer, sampled at 1000 Hz.
### 2.3 Data Analysis and Statistical Analysis
Tidal Volume (TV), Minute Ventilation (MV), Respiratory Rate (RespiR), and RR intervals (RRi) were calculated. RRi represents the time required for one cardiac cycle and corresponds to the reciprocal of heart rate. Subjective breathing difficulty was assessed using a Numerical Rating Scale (0=easy, 10=difficult). A Linear Mixed Model (LMM) was used to analyze the effects of postures on these parameters, with postural differences as fixed effects and individual differences as random intercepts. Estimated marginal means and confidence intervals were calculated, and comparisons between postures were performed using Tukey’s method. Cohen’s d was calculated as the effect size. Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.3.3 (R Core Team). The significance level was set at less than 5%.
## 3. RESULTS
Table 1 presents the estimated marginal means and 95% confidence intervals for lung volume fractions and RRi in each posture, along with the p-values and effect sizes from between-group comparisons.
View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2025/03/21/2025.03.10.25323643/T1)
Table 1. Respiratory Function values and RR Interval in all positions
TV was significantly higher in both UT30 and WT30 compared to SPIN (p < 0.05), with differences exceeding 90 mL in both cases. TV values were comparable between UT30 and WT30, with no significant difference. MV was significantly higher in UT30 compared to SPIN (p<0.05), with a difference of more than 1.5 L/min. In contrast, RespiR remained consistent across all postures at approximately 14 breaths/min, and no significant differences were observed among the postures. RRi was significantly lower in WT30 compared to SPIN (p<0.05), while no significant differences were found between other postures. NRS showed no significant differences between any of the postures.
The effect sizes for significant between-group differences ranged from approximately 1 to 2.4.
## 4. DISCUSSION
The major findings suggested that raising the upper trunk improves ventilation volume similar to raising the entire trunk, as TV was larger in UT30 compared to SPIN.
The significantly higher TV in WT30 compared to SPIN was consistent with previous studies comparing sitting and supine positions(Romei et al. 2010; Agostoni and Robert E Hyatt 2011; Takahashi et al. 1998). This can be attributed to the gravitational effect causing abdominal organs to move downward when the trunk is raised, resulting in a lowered diaphragm and increased thoracic volume(Agostoni and Robert E. Hyatt 2011; Mezidi and Guérin 2018).
In contrast, while UT30 involves raising the thoracic region and head, the abdomen remains unraised. Therefore, the downward movement of abdominal organs that occurs in WT30 is less likely to occur. Nevertheless, UT30 showed increased ventilation volume compared to SPIN. This may be explained by the relaxation of abdominal wall tension due to upper trunk flexion, which affects intra- abdominal pressure reduction and diaphragm descent. A positive correlation between abdominal tension and intra-abdominal pressure has been suggested(Novak et al. 2021). Furthermore, decreased intra-abdominal pressure has been shown to increase abdominal compliance, facilitating diaphragm descent(Goldman et al. 1986). Thus, the increase in TV likely resulted from the relaxation of abdominal muscles accompanying upper trunk flexion, which lowered intra-abdominal pressure and facilitated diaphragm descent. UT30 showed approximately 90 mL higher TV than SPIN, representing about a 30% increase. UT30, which involves raising only the upper trunk, can be achieved through a simple intervention using positioning cushions to raise the patient’s upper trunk from the supine position. This minor postural modification may potentially provide a simple way to improve ventilation volume.
Regarding MV, which is the product of TV and RR, considering that RR remained consistent at approximately 14 breaths/min across all postures with no significant differences, we conclude that the postural differences observed in TV influenced MV, resulting in differences between SPIN and the two semi-Fowler’s positions.
RRi was significantly lower in WT30 compared to SPIN, which may be attributed to a potential decrease in stroke volume when raising the entire trunk in WT30, possibly leading to a compensatory increase in heart rate. In contrast, UT30 showed no significant change in RRi compared to SPIN, indicating that stroke volume might be less affected in this position. These findings are consistent with the hemodynamic results demonstrated by Kubota et al(Kubota et al. 2015, 2017).
Although no significant differences were observed in NRS, this experiment was conducted under resting conditions and represented a low physical burden for healthy individuals. Therefore, we believe that participants had difficulty perceiving differences in breathing between the different postures. While our findings cannot be directly extrapolated to patient populations, they provide preliminary evidence for a beneficial effect of upper trunk flexion on ventilation. Previous studies have shown that semi-Fowler’s position can increase lung capacity and improve diaphragm range of motion in various populations(Grap et al. 2005; Zhu et al. 2020). Our finding of a substantial increase in tidal volume in healthy subjects provides a physiological basis for future clinical studies.
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, our sample consisted only of young healthy women, which limits the generalizability of our findings to other populations such as elderly patients, males, or individuals with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. Second, measurements were conducted under resting conditions for short durations (5 minutes per posture), which may not reflect ventilatory responses during prolonged positioning or physical exertion. Third, while we measured ventilation parameters, we did not assess gas exchange efficiency or arterial blood gases, which would provide more comprehensive information about respiratory function. Fourth, the laboratory setting may not fully replicate clinical environments where patients are typically positioned. Future studies should include diverse patient populations, longer measurement periods, additional respiratory parameters, and investigate whether this increase in ventilation volume translates to meaningful clinical outcomes such as reduced dyspnea, improved arterial blood gases, decreased length of mechanical ventilation, or reduced incidence of respiratory complications in various patient populations.
## 5. CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated that semi-Fowler’s position with upper trunk flexion improves ventilation volume. This posture may provide similar ventilation volume increases as raising the entire trunk while potentially causing less cardiovascular stress.
## 6. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
The findings of this study have important implications for clinical practice. In settings where patients experience reduced lung volumes, such as post-operative care, the UT30 position could be implemented as a simple intervention to improve ventilation. This positioning strategy is particularly valuable for frail or elderly patients who may not tolerate conventional Fowler’s positioning due to hemodynamic instability. For mechanically ventilated patients, this position might allow for lower tidal volume settings while maintaining adequate minute ventilation, potentially reducing ventilator- induced lung injury risk (Jiang et al. 2024; Yamamoto et al. 2022). Implementation requires minimal resources—simply using positioning cushions to raise the patient’s upper trunk—making it an accessible intervention across various healthcare settings.
## Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
## Funding
None
## Conflicts of interest
The researchers claim no conflicts of interest.
## Data Availability Statement
The authors will make the data supporting this article’s conclusions available upon reasonable request.
## Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants of our study, and Professor Sumiko Yamamoto and Professor Shinichiro Ishii for their valuable assistance.
Conceptualization, Sayuki Miyashita, Satoshi Kubota; Data curation, Sayuki Miyashita, Satoshi Kubota, Takuya Furudate; Formal analysis, Satoshi Kubota, Takuya Furudate; Investigation, Sayuki Miyashita, Satoshi Kubota, Takuya Furudate; Methodology, Satoshi Kubota, Sayuki Miyashita; Project administration, Sayuki Miyashita, Satoshi Kubota; Supervision, Satoshi Kubota; Writing\_original draft, Satoshi Kubota; Writing\_review & editing, Sayuki Miyashita, Takuya Furudate.
## Footnotes
* We have corrected redundant expressions. We also emphasized the clinical significance.
* Received March 10, 2025.
* Revision received March 21, 2025.
* Accepted March 21, 2025.
* © 2025, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
## References
1. 1.Agostoni, Emilio, and Robert E Hyatt. 2011. “Static Behavior of the Respiratory System.” Comprehensive Physiology 113–30.
2. 2.Agostoni, Emilio, and Robert E. Hyatt. 2011. “Static Behavior of the Respiratory System.” Pp. 113–30 in Comprehensive Physiology.
3. 3.Carol A Rauen, Mary Beth Flynn Makic, Elizabeth Bridges. 2009. “Evidence-Based Practice Habits: Transforming Research into Bedside Practice.” Crit Care Nurse 29(2):46–59.
[FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiY2NuIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjI5LzIvNDYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNS8wMy8yMS8yMDI1LjAzLjEwLjI1MzIzNjQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)
4. 4.Goldman, J. M., J. R. Silver, and R. P. Lehr. 1986. “An Electromyographic Study of the Abdominal Muscles of Tetraplegic Patients.” Spinal Cord 24(4):241–46. doi: 10.1038/sc.1986.33.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/sc.1986.33&link_type=DOI)
5. 5.Grap, Mary Jo, Cindy L. Munro, Russell S. Hummel III, R. K. Elswick Jr., Jessica L. McKinney, and Curtis N. Sessler. 2005. “Effect of Backrest Elevation on the Development of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia.” American Journal of Critical Care 14(4):325–32. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2005.14.4.325.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpjYyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIxNC80LzMyNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI1LzAzLzIxLzIwMjUuMDMuMTAuMjUzMjM2NDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
6. 6.Jiang, Jie, Feiping Xia, Zhonghua Lu, Yuying Tang, Haibo Qiu, Yi Yang, and Fengmei Guo. 2024. “Effects of Tidal Volume on Physiology and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with One-lung Ventilation Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Biomedical Reports 20(5):73. doi: 10.3892/br.2024.1761.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3892/br.2024.1761&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38550244&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
7. 7.Kubota, Satoshi, Yutaka Endo, Mitsue Kubota, Yusuke Ishizuka, and Takuya Furudate. 2015. “Effects of Trunk Posture in Fowler’s Position on Hemodynamics.” Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and Clinical 189:56–59. doi: 10.1016/j.autneu.2015.01.002.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.autneu.2015.01.002&link_type=DOI)
8. 8.Kubota, Satoshi, Yutaka Endo, Mitsue Kubota, Hiroko Miyazaki, and Tomohiko Shigemasa. 2022. “The Pressor Response to the Drinking of Cold Water and Cold Carbonated Water in Healthy Younger and Older Adults.” Frontiers in Neurology 12.
9. 9.Kubota, Satoshi, Yutaka Endo, Mitsue Kubota, and Tomohiko Shigemasa. 2017. “Assessment of Effects of Differences in Trunk Posture during Fowler’s Position on Hemodynamics and Cardiovascular Regulation in Older and Younger Subjects.” Clinical Interventions in Aging 12:603–10. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S132399.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/CIA.S132399&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28408809&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
10. 10.Mary Jo Grap, Cindy L. Munro. 2005. “Quality Improvement in Backrest Elevation: Improving Outcomes in Critical Care.” AACN Clin Issues 16(2):133–39.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15876880&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
11. 11.Mezidi, Mehdi, and Claude Guérin. 2018. “Effects of Patient Positioning on Respiratory Mechanics in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients.” Annals of Translational Medicine 6(19):1–9.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29404347&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
12. 12.Novak, Jakub, Jakub Jacisko, Andrew Busch, Pavel Cerny, Martin Stribrny, Martina Kovari, Patricie Podskalska, Pavel Kolar, and Alena Kobesova. 2021. “Intra-Abdominal Pressure Correlates with Abdominal Wall Tension during Clinical Evaluation Tests.” Clinical Biomechanics 88:105426. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105426.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105426&link_type=DOI)
13. 13.Romei, M., A. Lo Mauro, M. G. D’Angelo, A. C. Turconi, N. Bresolin, A. Pedotti, and A. Aliverti. 2010. “Effects of Gender and Posture on Thoraco-Abdominal Kinematics during Quiet Breathing in Healthy Adults.” Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology 172(3):184–91. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2010.05.018.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.resp.2010.05.018&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20510388&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
14. 14.Takahashi, Tetsuya, Sumio Yamada, Kazuhiko Tanabe, Masaru Nakayama, Naohiko Osada, Haruki Itoh, and Masahiro Murayama. 1998. “The Effects of Posture on the Ventilatory Responses During Exercise.” Journal of the Japanese Physical Therapy Association 1(1):13–17. doi: 10.1298/jjpta.1.13.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1298/jjpta.1.13&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25792876&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
15. 15.Yamamoto, Ryohei, Satoru Robert Okazaki, Yoshihito Fujita, Nozomu Seki, Yoshufumi Kokei, Shusuke Sekine, Soichiro Wada, Yasuhiro Norisue, and Chihiro Narita. 2022. “Usefulness of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation Strategy for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Scientific Reports 12(1):9331. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13224-y.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-022-13224-y&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35660756&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)
16. 16.Zhu, Qiongfang, Zheyan Huang, Qiaomei Ma, Zehui Wu, Yubo Kang, Miaoyin Zhang, Tiantian Gan, Minxue Wang, and Fei Huang. 2020. “Supine versus Semi-Fowler’s Positions for Tracheal Extubation in Abdominal Surgery-a Randomized Clinical Trial.” BMC Anesthesiology 20(1):185. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01108-5.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12871-020-01108-5&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32738878&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2025%2F03%2F21%2F2025.03.10.25323643.atom)