Alexandre Anefalos1, Fernando A M Herbella2, Marco G Patti3. 1. Department of Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Rua Diogo de Faria 1087, cj. 301, São Paulo, SP, 04037-003, Brazil. 2. Department of Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Rua Diogo de Faria 1087, cj. 301, São Paulo, SP, 04037-003, Brazil. herbella.dcir@epm.br. 3. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phenotypes of achalasia are based on esophageal body pressurization during swallow. The reasons that lead to pressurized waves are still unclear. This study aims to evaluate manometric parameters that may determine pressurized waves in patients with achalasia. METHODS: A total of 100 achalasia high-resolution manometry tests were reviewed. We measured before each swallow: upper esophageal sphincter (UES) basal pressure, esophageal length, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure, LES length, gastric and thoracic pressure, transdiaphragmatic pressure gradient and the LES retention pressure (LES basal pressure-TPG); during swallow: UES pressure, UES residual pressure, UES recovery time, LES relaxation pressure, gastric and thoracic pressure, transdiaphragmatic pressure gradient and after swallow: esophageal length, LES length, wave pressure, gastric and thoracic pressure and transdiaphragmatic gradient pressure. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed in pressurized waves before swallow: higher thoracic, UES and LES basal pressure, longer LES length and decrease in LES retention pressure; during swallow: higher thoracic, gastric and UES pressure, higher UES and LES relaxation pressure and after swallow: higher thoracic and gastric pressure. Multivariate analysis in pressurized waves showed as significant before swallow: thoracic and UES basal pressure; during swallow: thoracic, gastric and UES pressure, UES residual pressure and UES recovery time and after swallow: thoracic pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Basal esophageal pressurization and the UES are independent variables that may be associated with pressurized waves.
BACKGROUND: Phenotypes of achalasia are based on esophageal body pressurization during swallow. The reasons that lead to pressurized waves are still unclear. This study aims to evaluate manometric parameters that may determine pressurized waves in patients with achalasia. METHODS: A total of 100 achalasia high-resolution manometry tests were reviewed. We measured before each swallow: upper esophageal sphincter (UES) basal pressure, esophageal length, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure, LES length, gastric and thoracic pressure, transdiaphragmatic pressure gradient and the LES retention pressure (LES basal pressure-TPG); during swallow: UES pressure, UES residual pressure, UES recovery time, LES relaxation pressure, gastric and thoracic pressure, transdiaphragmatic pressure gradient and after swallow: esophageal length, LES length, wave pressure, gastric and thoracic pressure and transdiaphragmatic gradient pressure. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed in pressurized waves before swallow: higher thoracic, UES and LES basal pressure, longer LES length and decrease in LES retention pressure; during swallow: higher thoracic, gastric and UES pressure, higher UES and LES relaxation pressure and after swallow: higher thoracic and gastric pressure. Multivariate analysis in pressurized waves showed as significant before swallow: thoracic and UES basal pressure; during swallow: thoracic, gastric and UES pressure, UES residual pressure and UES recovery time and after swallow: thoracic pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Basal esophageal pressurization and the UES are independent variables that may be associated with pressurized waves.
Authors: Fernando P P Vicentine; Fernando A M Herbella; Marco E Allaix; Luciana C Silva; Marco G Patti Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: L Wauters; L Van Oudenhove; M Selleslagh; T Vanuytsel; G Boeckxstaens; J Tack; T Omari; N Rommel Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Wout O Rohof; Renato Salvador; Vito Annese; Stanislas Bruley des Varannes; Stanislas Chaussade; Mario Costantini; J Ignasi Elizalde; Marianne Gaudric; André J Smout; Jan Tack; Olivier R Busch; Giovanni Zaninotto; Guy E Boeckxstaens Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Simon C Mathews; Maria Ciarleglio; Yamile Haito Chavez; John O Clarke; Ellen Stein; Bani Chander Roland Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: P J Kahrilas; A J Bredenoord; M Fox; C P Gyawali; S Roman; A J P M Smout; J E Pandolfino Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Hashem B El-Serag; Qing Zhang; Nimeesh Shah; Sudip K Ghosh; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Monika A Kwiatek; Thomas Nealis; William Bulsiewicz; Jennifer Post; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Pedro Norton; Fernando A M Herbella; Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 3.445