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.

Understanding the Chicago Classification: From Tracings to Patients

Current parameters of the Chicago classification include assessment of the esophageal body (contraction vigour and peristalsis), lower esophageal sphincter relaxation pressure, and intra-bolus pressure pattern. Esophageal disorders include achalasia, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, major disorders of peristalsis, and minor disorders of peristalsis. Sub-classification of achalasia in types I, II, and III seems to be useful to predict outcomes and choose the optimal treatment approach. The real clinical significance of other new parameters and disorders is still under investigation.

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.