ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: La pHmetría esofágica permite cuantificar los episodios de reflujo ácido en pacientes con enfermedad por reflujo gastroesofágico (ERGE). El posicionamiento adecuado del electrodo de pH a 5 cm por encima del esfínter esofágico inferior (EEI), determina la precisión de la prueba. La manera más exacta para localizar el EEI es mediante su determinación previa por manometría esofágica, pero es una técnica molesta, por lo que en niños tendemos a utilizar fórmulas matemáticas. OBJETIVOS: Valorar la aplicabilidad de las fórmulas pediátricas de estimación de longitud esofágica en pacientes adultos y su repercusión en la precisión diagnóstica. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo en pacientes adultos en el que la distancia desde el borde de la narina hasta el EEI determinada por manometría se ha comparado con la distancia estimada en relación a la talla calculada por 4 fórmulas pediátricas (numeradas del 1 al 4). También hemos valorado la relación entre posición de la sonda y porcentaje de reflujos detectados en nuestra serie de impedanciometría. RESULTADOS: La fórmula 1 (9,31 + talla cm × 0,197) fue la más precisa (comparación de medias −0,38 con IC 95% −0,70 a −0,06, p = 0,019). Con dicha fórmula, ningún paciente presentó errores de estimación de ± 6 cm. Con las fórmulas 2, 3 y 4 el porcentaje de error fue del 4,4, del 1,5 y del 32,0%, respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: La estimación de la longitud del esófago en adultos mediante la fórmula 1 es aceptable y puede usarse en casos en los que el paciente rechace la realización de una manometría previa
INTRODUCTION: Oesophageal pH-monitoring allows the quantification of gastric reflux episodes in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The accuracy of the test depends on correct positioning of the pH sensor 5 cm above the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES). The most precise manner to locate the LES is through prior determination by oesophageal manometry. However, because this technique is uncomfortable, mathematical formulas tend to be used in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the applicability of paediatric formulas to estimate oesophageal length in adults and their effect on diagnostic accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in adult patients, in whom the distance between the nasal orifice and the LES was determined by manometry and was compared with the estimated height-related distance calculated by four paediatric formulas (numbered 1 to 4). We also evaluated the relationship between the position of the probe and the percentage of reflux detected in our series of impedance measurements. RESULTS: Formula 1 (9.31 + height in cm × 0.197) was the most accurate (comparison of means −0.38 with 95% CI −0.70/−0.06, P = .019). With this formula, none of the patients had estimation errors of ± 6 cm. With formulas 2, 3 and 4, the percentage of error was 4.4%, 1.5% and 32.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal length estimation in adults by using formula 1 is acceptable and can be used in adult patients who refuse to undergo prior manometry
Subject(s)
Humans , Adult , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Gastroesophageal Reflux/physiopathology , Esophagitis, Peptic/physiopathology , Prospective Studies , Manometry/methods , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Oesophageal pH-monitoring allows the quantification of gastric reflux episodes in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The accuracy of the test depends on correct positioning of the pH sensor 5 cm above the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES). The most precise manner to locate the LES is through prior determination by oesophageal manometry. However, because this technique is uncomfortable, mathematical formulas tend to be used in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the applicability of paediatric formulas to estimate oesophageal length in adults and their effect on diagnostic accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out in adult patients, in whom the distance between the nasal orifice and the LES was determined by manometry and was compared with the estimated height-related distance calculated by four paediatric formulas (numbered 1 to 4). We also evaluated the relationship between the position of the probe and the percentage of reflux detected in our series of impedance measurements. RESULTS: Formula 1 (9.31 + height in cm × 0.197) was the most accurate (comparison of means -0.38 with 95%CI -0.70/-0.06, P = .019). With this formula, none of the patients had estimation errors of ± 6 cm. With formulas 2, 3 and 4, the percentage of error was 4.4%, 1.5% and 32.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal length estimation in adults by using formula 1 is acceptable and can be used in adult patients who refuse to undergo prior manometry.
