Literature DB >> 2272217

Stationary vs. mapping manometry in evaluating dysphagia.

L Novais1, C Dalton, J E Richter.   

Abstract

Two methods are used to assess esophageal motility. The mapping technique uses catheter withdrawal at 1 cm steps until the entire esophagus is evaluated. A simpler method is commonly used that involves keeping the catheter stationary for the entire evaluation. We compared these 2 techniques in 30 patients referred for the evaluation of dysphagia. Emphasis was placed on the distal 10 cm of the esophagus because this is the primary location of esophageal motility disorders. There was excellent correlation between techniques for mean distal amplitude (r = 0.945), mean distal duration (r = 0.942), and percentage of non-peristaltic contractions (r = 0.967). The overall manometry diagnosis was similar by both methods in 27 (90%) patients. Three patients had different manometry diagnoses resulting from use of the two techniques. However, the change in diagnosis was only clinically important in one patient in whom the mapping technique identified a segmental motility disorder that had been missed by the stationary technique. Stationary manometry had a 94% sensitivity and 93% specificity rate for identifying motility disorders compared to mapping manometry. We conclude that stationary manometry is a simple and accurate method for evaluating esophageal pressures and distal disorders. Only those patients with normal results of stationary studies may benefit by further mapping to identify rare segmental motility disorders.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2272217     DOI: 10.1007/bf02412686

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dysphagia        ISSN: 0179-051X            Impact factor:   3.438


  14 in total

1.  Effect of dry swallows and wet swallows of different volumes on esophageal peristalsis.

Authors:  J B Hollis; D O Castell
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 3.531

2.  The effect of manometric assembly diameter on intraluminal esophageal pressure recording.

Authors:  S B Lydon; W J Dodds; W J Hogan; R C Arndorfer
Journal:  Am J Dig Dis       Date:  1975-10

3.  Accuracy of abbreviated manometry in detecting esophageal motility abnormalities.

Authors:  R E Clouse; L B Weinstock; D M Ferney
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Manometric investigation of the entire esophagus in healthy subjects and patients with high-amplitude peristaltic contractions.

Authors:  G Bassotti; G Bacci; D Biagini; P David; G Alunni; M A Pelli; A Morelli
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.438

5.  Improved infusion system for intraluminal esophageal manometry.

Authors:  R C Arndorfer; J J Stef; W J Dodds; J H Linehan; W J Hogan
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1977-07       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Esophageal manometry in 95 healthy adult volunteers. Variability of pressures with age and frequency of "abnormal" contractions.

Authors:  J E Richter; W C Wu; D N Johns; J N Blackwell; J L Nelson; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  "Segmental aperistalsis" of the esophagus: a cause of chest pain and dysphagia.

Authors:  M Traube; J Peterson; B N Siskind; R W McCallum
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Contraction abnormalities of the esophageal body in patients referred to manometry. A new approach to manometric classification.

Authors:  R E Clouse; A Staiano
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Esophageal testing of patients with noncardiac chest pain or dysphagia. Results of three years' experience with 1161 patients.

Authors:  P O Katz; C B Dalton; J E Richter; W C Wu; D O Castell
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Esophageal chest pain: current controversies in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy.

Authors:  J E Richter; L A Bradley; D O Castell
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1989-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.