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