Esther Guiu Hernandez1,2, Kristin Gozdzikowska3,4, Richard Jones5,6,7, Maggie-Lee Huckabee3,4. 1. Department of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. ester.guiuhernandez@canterbury.ac.nz. 2. The Rose Centre for Stroke Recovery and Research, The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. ester.guiuhernandez@canterbury.ac.nz. 3. Department of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 4. The Rose Centre for Stroke Recovery and Research, The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 5. New Zealand Brain Research Institute, Christchurch, New Zealand. 6. Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Notable differences have been identified between low-resolution manometry (LRM) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) in normative data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate within-subject differences between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM solid-state measurement sensors in the pharyngoesophageal segment during swallowing. METHODS: Ten healthy subjects (mean 26.9 years) were evaluated with both a 2.10 mm unidirectional catheter and a 2.75 mm circumferential catheter, with randomized order of catheter placement. Unidirectional measurements were made in four directions (posterior, anterior, right-lateral, left-lateral). Pressures and durations were analyzed to compare (1) posterior to anterior and lateral recordings and (2) posterior and average-LRM measures (C-LRM) to HRM measures at same anatomical location. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in any of the measures across the four radial directions. A lower amplitude was measured in C-LRM compared to HRM for pharyngeal sensors (LRM Sensor 1: - 39.7 mmHg; Sensor 2: - 61.4 mmHg). Compared with posterior-LRM, HRM recorded higher UES pressures (- 12.8 mmHg) and longer UES relaxation durations (- 0.31 s). CONCLUSION: This exploratory study is the first to compare within-subject pressures between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM. Substantial differences in pharyngeal manometric measures were found, particularly with regard to UES function. This is clinically important as manometry is uniquely able to evaluate UES function and clarify differential diagnoses in patients with dysphagia.
BACKGROUND: Notable differences have been identified between low-resolution manometry (LRM) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) in normative data. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate within-subject differences between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM solid-state measurement sensors in the pharyngoesophageal segment during swallowing. METHODS: Ten healthy subjects (mean 26.9 years) were evaluated with both a 2.10 mm unidirectional catheter and a 2.75 mm circumferential catheter, with randomized order of catheter placement. Unidirectional measurements were made in four directions (posterior, anterior, right-lateral, left-lateral). Pressures and durations were analyzed to compare (1) posterior to anterior and lateral recordings and (2) posterior and average-LRM measures (C-LRM) to HRM measures at same anatomical location. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in any of the measures across the four radial directions. A lower amplitude was measured in C-LRM compared to HRM for pharyngeal sensors (LRM Sensor 1: - 39.7 mmHg; Sensor 2: - 61.4 mmHg). Compared with posterior-LRM, HRM recorded higher UES pressures (- 12.8 mmHg) and longer UES relaxation durations (- 0.31 s). CONCLUSION: This exploratory study is the first to compare within-subject pressures between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM. Substantial differences in pharyngeal manometric measures were found, particularly with regard to UES function. This is clinically important as manometry is uniquely able to evaluate UES function and clarify differential diagnoses in patients with dysphagia.
Authors: Corinne A Jones; Michael J Hammer; Matthew R Hoffman; Timothy M McCulloch Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Barbara Roa Pauloski; Alfred W Rademaker; Cathy Lazarus; Guy Boeckxstaens; Peter J Kahrilas; Jerilyn A Logemann Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 3.438
Authors: Michael J Hammer; Corinne A Jones; Corrine A Jones; Jason D Mielens; Chloe H Kim; Timothy M McCulloch Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 3.438