BACKGROUND: Discrepancy exists between the endoscopic (rugal folds) and the histopathologic (oxyntic mucosa) definition of proximal stomach. We compared endoscopy and histopathology of the esophagogastric junction in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: A total of 102 consecutive patients (60 women) with gastroesophageal reflux disease prospectively underwent endoscopy including multilevel biopsy sampling at the level of the rise of rugal folds (level 0), and also 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm distal and 0.5 cm and > or = 1 cm proximal to this point. Columnar lined esophagus (CLE) was cataloged according to the histopathologic Paull-Chandrasoma classification and esophagitis according to the endoscopic Los Angeles classification. Hiatal hernia was diagnosed if the endoscopic rugal folds commenced > or = 2 cm above the diaphragm; competency of the esophagogastric valve was graded according to the Hill classification. RESULTS: All patients had histopathologic CLE with maximal presence at level 0 (97%) and a decrease towards proximal and distal biopsy levels (level -0.5 cm, 81%; level -1.0, 28%; level + 0.5 cm, 40%; level + 1.0 cm, 18%). Histopathologic CLE (distance between CLE-positive biopsy levels) was longer than endoscopic CLE (P < 0.001). All 19 patients with intestinal metaplasia (18.6%) were identified from 4-quadrant biopsies obtained at the squamocolumnar junction and at 0.5 cm distal from it. Persons with intestinal metaplasia were significantly older, had increased frequency of endoscopic hiatal hernia, higher Hill grade and presence of endoscopic CLE (P < 0.05); no significant difference was observed regarding sex, endoscopic esophagitis or length of endoscopic and histopathologic CLE (P > 0.05). None of the patients had dysplasia or carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease the esophagogastric junction cannot be identified by endoscopy but requires histopathology of multilevel biopsies. The squamocolumnar junction harbors the highest yield of intestinal metaplasia.
BACKGROUND: Discrepancy exists between the endoscopic (rugal folds) and the histopathologic (oxyntic mucosa) definition of proximal stomach. We compared endoscopy and histopathology of the esophagogastric junction in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: A total of 102 consecutive patients (60 women) with gastroesophageal reflux disease prospectively underwent endoscopy including multilevel biopsy sampling at the level of the rise of rugal folds (level 0), and also 0.5 cm and 1.0 cm distal and 0.5 cm and > or = 1 cm proximal to this point. Columnar lined esophagus (CLE) was cataloged according to the histopathologic Paull-Chandrasoma classification and esophagitis according to the endoscopic Los Angeles classification. Hiatal hernia was diagnosed if the endoscopic rugal folds commenced > or = 2 cm above the diaphragm; competency of the esophagogastric valve was graded according to the Hill classification. RESULTS: All patients had histopathologic CLE with maximal presence at level 0 (97%) and a decrease towards proximal and distal biopsy levels (level -0.5 cm, 81%; level -1.0, 28%; level + 0.5 cm, 40%; level + 1.0 cm, 18%). Histopathologic CLE (distance between CLE-positive biopsy levels) was longer than endoscopic CLE (P < 0.001). All 19 patients with intestinal metaplasia (18.6%) were identified from 4-quadrant biopsies obtained at the squamocolumnar junction and at 0.5 cm distal from it. Persons with intestinal metaplasia were significantly older, had increased frequency of endoscopic hiatal hernia, higher Hill grade and presence of endoscopic CLE (P < 0.05); no significant difference was observed regarding sex, endoscopic esophagitis or length of endoscopic and histopathologic CLE (P > 0.05). None of the patients had dysplasia or carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease the esophagogastric junction cannot be identified by endoscopy but requires histopathology of multilevel biopsies. The squamocolumnar junction harbors the highest yield of intestinal metaplasia.
Authors: Johannes Lenglinger; Claudia Ringhofer; Margit Eisler; Roland Sedivy; Fritz Wrba; Johannes Zacherl; Enrico P Cosentini; Gerhard Prager; Michael Haefner; Martin Riegler Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Prateek Sharma; John Dent; David Armstrong; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Liebwin Gossner; Yoshio Hoshihara; Janusz A Jankowski; Ola Junghard; Lars Lundell; Guido N J Tytgat; Michael Vieth Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-08-16 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Dawn D Ferguson; Kenneth R DeVault; Murli Krishna; David S Loeb; Herbert C Wolfsen; Michael B Wallace Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Oscar W Cummings; Michael Shaw; Mark D Cumings; Roy K H Wong; Raj S Vasudeva; Donal Dunne; Emad Y Rahmani; Debra J Helper Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Eugene Y Chang; Cynthia D Morris; Ann K Seltman; Robert W O'Rourke; Benjamin K Chan; John G Hunter; Blair A Jobe Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Heinz F Wykypiel; Johannes Bodner; Florian Augustin; Oliver Renz; Elisabeth Hoeller; Thomas Schmid Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Johannes Lenglinger; Stephanie Fischer See; Lukas Beller; Enrico P Cosentini; Reza Asari; Fritz Wrba; Martin Riegler; Sebastian F Schoppmann Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 1.704