Literature DB >> 19779945

The value of high-resolution manometry in the assessment of the resting characteristics of the lower esophageal sphincter.

Shahin Ayazi1, Jeffrey A Hagen, Joerg Zehetner, Oliver Ross, Calvin Wu, Arzu Oezcelik, Emmanuele Abate, Helen J Sohn, Farzaneh Banki, John C Lipham, Steven R DeMeester, Tom R Demeester.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry (HRM) is faster and easier to perform than conventional water perfused manometry. There is general acceptance of its usefulness in evaluating upper esophageal sphincter and esophageal body. There has been less emphasis on the use of HRM to evaluate the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and length, both factors important in LES barrier function. The aim of this study was to compare the resting characteristics of the LES determined by HRM and conventional manometry in the same patients.
METHODS: We performed both HRM and conventional manometry including a slow motorized pull-through technique in 55 patients with foregut symptoms. The characteristics of the LES analyzed were: resting pressure, total length, and abdominal length. Four available modes of HRM analysis were used to assess resting characteristics of the LES: spatiotemporal mode using both abrupt color change and isobaric contour, line tracing, and pressure profile. The values obtained from these four HRM modes were then compared to the conventional manometry measurements.
RESULTS: High-resolution manometry and conventional manometry did not differ in their measurement of LES resting pressure. LES overall and abdominal length were consistently overestimated by HRM. A variability up to 4 cm in overall length was observed and was greatest in patients with hiatal hernia (1.8 vs. 0.9 cm, p = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: The current construction of the catheter and software analysis used in high-resolution manometry do not allow precise measurement of LES length. Errors in the identification of the upper border of the sphincter may compromise accurate positioning of a pH probe.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19779945     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-009-1042-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  16 in total

1.  The gastroesophageal sphincter in healthy human beings.

Authors:  C F CODE; F E FYKE; J F SCHLEGEL
Journal:  Gastroenterologia       Date:  1956

2.  Comparison of esophageal acid exposure at 1 cm and 6 cm above the squamocolumnar junction using the Bravo pH monitoring system.

Authors:  J E Pandolfino; T J Lee; M A Schreiner; Q Zhang; M P Roth; P J Kahrilas
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.429

Review 3.  Challenging the limits of esophageal manometry.

Authors:  Peter J Kahrilas; Sudip K Ghosh; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Deglutitive upper esophageal sphincter relaxation: a study of 75 volunteer subjects using solid-state high-resolution manometry.

Authors:  Sudip K Ghosh; John E Pandolfino; Qing Zhang; Andrew Jarosz; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 4.052

Review 5.  Esophageal motility disorders in terms of pressure topography: the Chicago Classification.

Authors:  Peter J Kahrilas; Sudip K Ghosh; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.062

6.  Utilizing intraluminal pressure gradients to predict esophageal clearance: a validation study.

Authors:  John E Pandolfino; Sudip K Ghosh; Nilesh Lodhia; Peter J Kahrilas
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-07-12       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 7.  High-resolution manometry and impedance-pH/manometry: valuable tools in clinical and investigational esophagology.

Authors:  Peter J Kahrilas; Daniel Sifrim
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Transsphincteric pH profile at the gastroesophageal junction.

Authors:  Jyothi Mekapati; Linda C Knight; Alan H Maurer; Robert S Fisher; Henry P Parkman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 11.382

9.  Measurement of gastric pH in ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring.

Authors:  Shahin Ayazi; Jessica M Leers; Arzu Oezcelik; Emmanuele Abate; Christian G Peyre; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester; Farzaneh Banki; John C Lipham; Tom R DeMeester; Peter F Crookes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Investigation of pharyngeal swallowing function using high-resolution manometry.

Authors:  Kenji Takasaki; Hiroshi Umeki; Kaori Enatsu; Fujinobu Tanaka; Noriyuki Sakihama; Hidetaka Kumagami; Haruo Takahashi
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  15 in total

1.  High-resolution and conventional manometry in the assessment of the lower esophageal sphincter length.

Authors:  Fernando A M Herbella; Fernando P P Vicentine; Jose C Del Grande
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Significant pressure differences between solid-state and water-perfused systems in lower esophageal sphincter measurement.

Authors:  Philipp Gehwolf; Ronald A Hinder; Kenneth R DeVault; Michael Edlinger; Heinz F Wykypiel; Paul J Klingler
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Factors influencing lower esophageal sphincter relaxation after deglutition.

Authors:  Lita Tibbling; Per Gezelius; Thomas Franzén
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Factors influencing the outcome of magnetic sphincter augmentation for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Heather F Warren; Lisa M Brown; Matias Mihura; Alexander S Farivar; Ralph W Aye; Brian E Louie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Value of Multidetector Computed Tomography in the Assessment of Achalasia Subtypes and Detection of Pulmonary and Thoracic Complications.

Authors:  Sanja Jovanovic; Aleksandra Djuric-Stefanovic; Aleksandar Simić; Ognjan Skrobic; Predrag Pesko
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 1.927

6.  The effect of incremental distal gastric myotomy lengths on EGJ distensibility during POEM for achalasia.

Authors:  Ezra N Teitelbaum; Joel M Sternbach; Rym El Khoury; Nathaniel J Soper; John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas; Zhiyue Lin; Eric S Hungness
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Does Treatment of the Hiatus Influence the Outcomes of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation for Chronic GERD?

Authors:  Matías Mihura Irribarra; Sandra Blitz; Candice L Wilshire; Anee Sophia Jackson; Alexander S Farivar; Ralph W Aye; Christy M Dunst; Brian E Louie
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Esophagogastric Junction pressure morphology: comparison between a station pull-through and real-time 3D-HRM representation.

Authors:  F Nicodème; Z Lin; J E Pandolfino; P J Kahrilas
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 3.598

9.  High resolution manometry sub-classification of Achalasia: does it really matter? Does Achalasia sub-classification matter?

Authors:  Christina L Greene; Erica J Chang; Daniel S Oh; Stephanie G Worrell; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Length and pressure of the reconstructed lower esophageal sphincter is determined by both crural closure and Nissen fundoplication.

Authors:  Brian E Louie; Seema Kapur; Maurice Blitz; Alexander S Farivar; Eric Vallières; Ralph W Aye
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.