| Literature DB >> 33259162 |
Florencia Carbone1, Asma Fikree2, Qasim Aziz2, Jan Tack1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The pathophysiology underlying functional dyspepsia (FD) is multifactorial and focuses on gastric sensorimotor dysfunction. Recent studies demonstrated that joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) is strongly associated with unexplained dyspeptic symptoms in patients attending gastrointestinal clinics. We aimed to study the relationship between symptoms, gastric sensorimotor function, and JHS in FD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33259162 PMCID: PMC7641428 DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000220
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol ISSN: 2155-384X Impact factor: 4.396
Clinical characteristics of joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) and non-JHS
| Beighton score (4/9) | Arthralgia (>3 joints) | Dislocations/subluxation | Soft tissue lesions | Abnormal skin | Marfanoid habitus | Eyes signs | Varicose veins/hernia/prolapse | |
| JHS group (n = 34) | 32% | 32% | 59% | 53% | 50% | 26% | 12% | 18% |
| Non-JHS group (n = 24) | 4% | 13% | 21% | 8% | 29% | 0% | 17% | 0% |
| 0.009 | 0.12 | 0.007 | 0.0006 | 0.2 | 0.007 | 0.7 | 0.04 |
Figure 1.Gastric compliance of patients with functional dyspepsia with joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) and without JHS. Representation of average intragastric balloon volume per increasing intragastric balloon pressure. No significant difference was observed in gastric compliance (slope volume/pressure) between groups (P = 0.60).
Figure 2.Gastric sensitivity to distention of patients with functional dyspepsia with joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) and without JHS. Increasing gastric perception per increasing intragastric balloon pressure. Patients with JHS did not display a significantly different sensitivity to gastric distention compared with patients without JHS (P = 0.53).
Figure 3.Gastric accommodation in patients with functional dyspepsia with joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) and without JHS. Time 0 is the time in which the patients drank a nutrient drink (200 mL, 300 kcal). No differences in gastric accommodation were observed between the groups (P = 0.78).