AIM: To analyze manometric abnormalities in patients with isolated distal reflux and compare these findings in patients with erosive and non-erosive disease, METHODS: Five hundred and fifty patients who presented to...AIM: To analyze manometric abnormalities in patients with isolated distal reflux and compare these findings in patients with erosive and non-erosive disease, METHODS: Five hundred and fifty patients who presented to the outpatient clinic of Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Hospital with gastroesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms were enrolled, Each individual was evaluated with esophageal manometry, 24-h ambulatory pH monitoring, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, Manometric findings for the patients with isolated distal reflux were compared to findings in controls who were free of reflux disorders or hypersensitive esophagus, Findings for isolated distal reflux patients with and without erosive reflux disease were also compared, RESULTS: Of the 550 subjects enrolled, 97 (17.6%, mean age 48 years) had isolated distal reflux and i00 had no abnormalities on ambulatory pH monitoring (control group, mean age 45 years). There were no significant differences between the isolated distal reflux group and control group with respect to age, body mass index, and esophageal body contraction amplitude (EBCA). Mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was significantly higher in the control group (12.7 ± 10.3 mmHg vs 9.6 ± 7.4 mmHg, P = 0.01). Fifty-five (56.7%) of the 97 patients with isolated distal reflux had erosive reflux disease. There were no statistical differences between the erosive reflux disease and non-erosive reflux disease subgroups with respect to mean EBCA, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, or DeMeester score.However, 13% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease had distal wave amplitudes ≤ 30 mmHg, whereas none of the patients with non-erosive reflux disease had distal wave amplitudes in this low category. CONCLUSION: Patients with erosive and non-erosive disease present with similar manometric abnormalities. The only striking difference is the observation of very low EBCA exclusively in patients with erosive disease.展开更多
AIM: To determine the gastroesophageal refl uxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) f indings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diam...AIM: To determine the gastroesophageal refl uxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) f indings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diameter (ELD), esophageal diameter (ED)]; to compare TCEUS findings in the patient subgroups divided according to 24-h esophageal pH monitoring and manometry; and to investigate possible cut-off values according to the TCEUS f indings as a predictor of gastroesophageal refl ux (GER). METHODS: In 45/500 patients, refl uxate was visualized in TCEUS. 38/45 patients underwent esophagogastroduo denoscopy (EGD), 24-h pH monitoring and manometry. RESULTS: The 38 patients were grouped according to 24-h pH monitoring as follows: Group A: GER-positive (n = 20) [Includes Group B: isolated proximal refl ux (PR) (n = 6), Group C: isolated distal reflux (DR) (n = 6), and Group D: both PR/DR (n = 8)]; Group E: no refl ux (n = 13); and Group F: hypersensitive esophagus (HSE) (n = 5). Groups B + D indicated total PR patients (n = 14), Groups E + F refl ux-negatives with HSE (n = 18), and Groups A + F refl ux-positives with HSE (n = 25). When the 38 patients were grouped according to manometry fi ndings, 24 had normal esophageal manometry; 7 had hypotensive and 2 had hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES); and 5 had ineffective esophageal motility disorder (IEM). The ELD measurement was greater in group A + F than group E (P = 0.023, 5.0 ± 1.3 vs 3.9 ± 1.4 mm). In 27/38 patients, there was at least one pathologic acid refl ux and/or pathologic manometry fi nding. The cut-off value for ELD of 4.83 mm had 79% sensitivity and 61% specificity in predicting the PRbetween Groups B + D and E (AUC = 0.775, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Visualizing refluxate in TCEUS was useful as a pre-diagnostic tool for estimating GER or manometric pathology in 71.1% of adults in our study, but it was not diagnostic for CE WT.展开更多
文摘AIM: To analyze manometric abnormalities in patients with isolated distal reflux and compare these findings in patients with erosive and non-erosive disease, METHODS: Five hundred and fifty patients who presented to the outpatient clinic of Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Hospital with gastroesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms were enrolled, Each individual was evaluated with esophageal manometry, 24-h ambulatory pH monitoring, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, Manometric findings for the patients with isolated distal reflux were compared to findings in controls who were free of reflux disorders or hypersensitive esophagus, Findings for isolated distal reflux patients with and without erosive reflux disease were also compared, RESULTS: Of the 550 subjects enrolled, 97 (17.6%, mean age 48 years) had isolated distal reflux and i00 had no abnormalities on ambulatory pH monitoring (control group, mean age 45 years). There were no significant differences between the isolated distal reflux group and control group with respect to age, body mass index, and esophageal body contraction amplitude (EBCA). Mean lower esophageal sphincter pressure was significantly higher in the control group (12.7 ± 10.3 mmHg vs 9.6 ± 7.4 mmHg, P = 0.01). Fifty-five (56.7%) of the 97 patients with isolated distal reflux had erosive reflux disease. There were no statistical differences between the erosive reflux disease and non-erosive reflux disease subgroups with respect to mean EBCA, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, or DeMeester score.However, 13% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease had distal wave amplitudes ≤ 30 mmHg, whereas none of the patients with non-erosive reflux disease had distal wave amplitudes in this low category. CONCLUSION: Patients with erosive and non-erosive disease present with similar manometric abnormalities. The only striking difference is the observation of very low EBCA exclusively in patients with erosive disease.
文摘AIM: To determine the gastroesophageal refl uxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) f indings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diameter (ELD), esophageal diameter (ED)]; to compare TCEUS findings in the patient subgroups divided according to 24-h esophageal pH monitoring and manometry; and to investigate possible cut-off values according to the TCEUS f indings as a predictor of gastroesophageal refl ux (GER). METHODS: In 45/500 patients, refl uxate was visualized in TCEUS. 38/45 patients underwent esophagogastroduo denoscopy (EGD), 24-h pH monitoring and manometry. RESULTS: The 38 patients were grouped according to 24-h pH monitoring as follows: Group A: GER-positive (n = 20) [Includes Group B: isolated proximal refl ux (PR) (n = 6), Group C: isolated distal reflux (DR) (n = 6), and Group D: both PR/DR (n = 8)]; Group E: no refl ux (n = 13); and Group F: hypersensitive esophagus (HSE) (n = 5). Groups B + D indicated total PR patients (n = 14), Groups E + F refl ux-negatives with HSE (n = 18), and Groups A + F refl ux-positives with HSE (n = 25). When the 38 patients were grouped according to manometry fi ndings, 24 had normal esophageal manometry; 7 had hypotensive and 2 had hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES); and 5 had ineffective esophageal motility disorder (IEM). The ELD measurement was greater in group A + F than group E (P = 0.023, 5.0 ± 1.3 vs 3.9 ± 1.4 mm). In 27/38 patients, there was at least one pathologic acid refl ux and/or pathologic manometry fi nding. The cut-off value for ELD of 4.83 mm had 79% sensitivity and 61% specificity in predicting the PRbetween Groups B + D and E (AUC = 0.775, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Visualizing refluxate in TCEUS was useful as a pre-diagnostic tool for estimating GER or manometric pathology in 71.1% of adults in our study, but it was not diagnostic for CE WT.