Literature DB >> 26884692

Comparison of the efficiencies of esophageal manometry, vector volume analysis and esophagus pH monitoring in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux.

Emrah Aydın1, Rahşan Özcan1, Ergun Erdoğan1, Gonca Tekant1.   

Abstract

AIM: In this study, we aimed to compare the superiorities of esophageal manometry, vector volume analysis and 24-hour pH meter studies in showing gastroesophageal reflux disease.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The files of the patients who presented to pediatric surgery and pediatric gastroenterology outpatient clinics of our hospital with suspicious gastroesophageal reflux disease between 2011 and 2012 and who were investigated were examined and 21 patients whose investigations had been completed were included in the study. The patients were evaluated by treatment method and were divided into three groups as Group 1 who were followed up with medical treatment, Group 2 in whom surgical intervention was performed and Group 3 who were not treated. Chi-square test was used in evaluation of the categorical variables, Kruskal Wallis test was used in comparison of the mean values between the groups and Dunn test was used in subgroup analyses when Kruskal Wallis test was found to be significant. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Thirteen of 21 patients included in the study were female and eight were male. The mean age of the patients was 5.71 years (one-16 years). In the 24-hour pH monitoring study, the mean reflux index was found to be 48.7% in Group 1, 42.4% in Group 2 and 28.3% in Group 3. In esophageal manometry studies, the pressure difference at lower esophageal sphincter (LES) was found to be 13,4 cm H2O in Group 1, 31.8 cm H2O in Group 2 and 4.3 cmH2O in Group 3. In vector volume analyses, the mean vector volume was calculated to be 96.01 cm(3) in Group 1, 2 398.9 cm(3) in Group 2 and 196.3 cm(3) in Group 3. In the 24-hour pH monitoring study, a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found in terms of showing reflux, whereas statistical significance could not be shown in terms of need for surgical treatment or need for medical treatment in any other method (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring was found to be efficient in making a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, whereas esophageal manometry and vector volume analyses were not found to be efficient.

Entities:  

Keywords:  24 hour pH monitoring; Lower esophageal sphincter vector volume analysis; esophageal manometry; gastroesophageal reflux

Year:  2015        PMID: 26884692      PMCID: PMC4743865          DOI: 10.5152/TurkPediatriArs.2015.2839

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk Pediatri Ars


  19 in total

Review 1.  Can pH monitoring reliably detect gastro-oesophageal reflux in preterm infants?

Authors:  L Grant; D Cochran
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.747

2.  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

3.  Reliability of oesophageal pH recording for the detection of gastro-oesophageal reflux.

Authors:  Marissa C Aanen; Albert J Bredenoord; Melvin Samsom; Andre J P M Smout
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 4.  Manometry: technical issues.

Authors:  R Matthew Gideon
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2005-04

5.  Correlation between gastric acid secretion and severity of acid reflux in children.

Authors:  Nicolas Kalach; Abdul Monem Badran; Patrick Jaffray; Florence Campeotto; Pierre Henri Benhamou; Christophe Dupont
Journal:  Turk J Pediatr       Date:  2003 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.552

6.  Audit of the role of oesophageal manometry in clinical practice.

Authors:  P W Johnston; B T Johnston; B J Collins; J S Collins; A H Love
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Prognostic value of esophageal manometry in antireflux surgery in childhood.

Authors:  F Cullu; F Gottrand; M D Lamblin; D Turck; M Bonnevalle; J P Farriaux
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 2.839

8.  Muscular equivalent of the lower esophageal sphincter.

Authors:  D Liebermann-Meffert; M Allgöwer; P Schmid; A L Blum
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicentre study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring.

Authors:  I Mainie; R Tutuian; S Shay; M Vela; X Zhang; D Sifrim; D O Castell
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  Is analysis of lower esophageal sphincter vector volumes of value in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease?

Authors:  Robert E Marsh; Christopher L Perdue; Ziad T Awad; Patrice Watson; Mohamed Selima; Richard E Davis; Charles J Filipi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.