Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Chicago Classification for Esophageal Motility Disorders

High-resolution manometry permitted the creation of the Chicago classification, that is the categorization for esophageal motility disorders most currently used. Despite its wide acceptance, there are few pitfalls for the correct interpretation of the tests. This technique review illustrates some difficult cases that may lead to misinterpretation of the results. Difficult cases are analyzed, such as the distinction of: (1) esophagogastric junction morphology and lower esophageal sphincter excursion, (2) intrabolus pressure pattern or common cavity, (3) hypercontractile esophagus (jackhammer) and achalasia type III, (4) absent contractility and severe ineffective esophageal motility or achalasia type I, and (5) simultaneous distal esophageal spasm and ineffective esophageal motility.

Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Chicago Classification for Esophageal Motility Disorders

High-resolution manometry permitted the creation of the Chicago classification, that is the categorization for esophageal motility disorders most currently used. Despite its wide acceptance, there are few pitfalls for the correct interpretation of the tests. This technique review illustrates some difficult cases that may lead to misinterpretation of the results. Difficult cases are analyzed, such as the distinction of: (1) esophagogastric junction morphology and lower esophageal sphincter excursion, (2) intrabolus pressure pattern or common cavity, (3) hypercontractile esophagus (jackhammer) and achalasia type III, (4) absent contractility and severe ineffective esophageal motility or achalasia type I, and (5) simultaneous distal esophageal spasm and ineffective esophageal motility.

Gastric Tube Motility Patterns in Patients After Esophageal Resection with Gastric Pull-up

No abstract available.

High-resolution Manometry Findings in Patients After Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Varices

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic therapy for esophageal varices may lead to esophageal dysmotility. High-resolution manometry is probably the more adequate tool to measure esophageal motility in these patients. This study aimed to evaluate esophageal motility using high resolution manometry following eradication of esophageal varices by endoscopic sclerotherapy. METHODS: We studied 21 patients (11 women, age 52 [45-59] years). All patients underwent eradication of esophageal varices with endoscopic sclerotherapy and subsequent high resolution manometry. RESULTS: A significant percentage of defective lower esophageal sphincter (basal pressure 14.3 [8.0-20.0] mmHg; 43% hypertonic) and hypocontractility (distal esophageal amplitude 50 [31-64] mmHg; proximal esophageal amplitude 40 [31-61] mmHg; distal contractile integral 617 [403-920] mmHg · sec · cm; 48% ineffective) was noticed. Lower sphincter basal pressure and esophageal amplitude correlated inversely with the number of sessions (P < 0.001). No manometric parameter correlated with symptoms or interval between last endoscopy and manometry. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal motility after endoscopic sclerotherapy is characterized by: (1) defective lower sphincter and (2) defective and hypotensive peristalsis. Esophageal dysmotility is associated to an increased number of endoscopic sessions, but manometric parameters do not predict symptoms.

Esophageal Dysmotility in Gillespie Syndrome

No abstract available.

High resolution manometric findings in patients with Chagas' disease esophagopathy

OBJECTIVE@#To describe high resolution manometry features of a population of symptomatic patients with Chagas' disease esophagopathy (CDE).@*METHODS@#Sixteen symptomatic dysphagic patients with CDE [mean age (54.81±13.43) years, 10 women] were included in this study. All patients underwent a high resolution manometry.@*RESULTS@#Mean lower esophageal sphincter (LES) extension was (3.02±1.17) cm with a mean basal pressure of (15.25±7.00) mmHg. Residual pressure was (14.31±9.19) mmHg. Aperistalsis was found in all 16 patients. Achalasia with minimal esophageal pressurization (type 1) was present in 25% of patients and achalasia with esophageal compression (type 2) in 75%, according to the Chicago Classification. Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) mean basal pressure was (97.96±54.22) mmHg with a residual pressure of (12.95±6.42) mmHg.@*CONCLUSIONS@#Our results show that LES was hypotensive or normotensive in the majority of the patients. Impaired relaxation was found in a minority of our patients. Aperistalsis was seen in 100% of patients. UES had impaired relaxation in a significant number of patients. Further clinical study is needed to investigate whether manometric features can predict outcomes following the studies of idiopathic achalasia.