Comparison of Air-Coupled Balloon Esophageal and Anorectal Manometry Catheters with Solid-State Esophageal Manometry and Water-Perfused Anorectal Manometry Catheters

2004 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 1657-1663 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Fang ◽  
Kristen Hilden ◽  
Ashok K. Tuteja ◽  
Kathryn A. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Solid State ◽  
Anorectal Manometry ◽  
Esophageal Manometry

scholarly journals WATER-PERFUSED HIGH-RESOLUTION ANORECTAL MANOMETRY (HRAM-WP): THE FIRST BRAZILIAN STUDY

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 41-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Guilherme VIEBIG ◽  
Janaina Tomiye Yamakata FRANCO ◽  
Sergio Viebig ARAUJO ◽  
Daniel GUALBERTO
Keyword(s):  
Solid State ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Anorectal Manometry ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Sphincter Injury ◽  
New Information ◽  
Assessment Time ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Vector Volume

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: High resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM-WP) allows more simplified, objective, and uniform data acquisition and interpretation of the test results. OBJECTIVE: To validate a HRAM under water perfusion (Alacer Biomédica) with a 24-channel probe and to compare the results of anorectal manometry with other systems. METHODS: Individuals without critical evacuation disorders were selected. Patients with incontinence, anal surgery, dyssynergia or sphincter injury were excluded. The test was performed with an Alacer Biomédica 24 channel manometry system under water perfusion, with a probe configured with 6 levels of 4 radial channels, separated from each other by 0.8 mm. The mean pressures for the functional channel were determined, in states of rest (RMP), contention effort (CMP) and evacuation effort (EEMP). The pressure extension of the sphincter was also tabulated in cm. The results were compared with those available in recent literature. RESULTS: Fifty patients were studied (20 men; 30 women). Overall, the following results were obtained: the RMP was 76.9±3.0 mmHg, the CMP was 194.2±9.4 mmHg, and EEMP was 88.2±3.7 mmHg. When classified according to the gender, for men: RMP was 72.2±3.0 mmHg, CMP was 229.5±17 mmHg, and EEMP was 91.4±7.0. For women, RMP was 79.8±4.0 mmHg, CMP was 170.7±8, and EEMP was 86.1±4.3 mmHg. The sphincter gauge extension for both genders was 3.1±0.09 cm (men 3.3±0.1; women 3.0±0.1). DISCUSSION: Studying HRAM-WP has become much easier. Non-mobilization of the sensor causes less discomfort and artefacts with a lower assessment time. In this study, small differential values between both sexes during rest were observed, highlighting a greater containment force in men. No difference in sphincter extension was noted. The results of this study are consistent with that of existing reports and with those obtained using solid state probes. CONCLUSION: The perfusion system yielded results similar to that of solid state systems. Further studies to evaluate parameters with respect to pelvic dyssynergia and incontinence need to be conducted. Additionally, to determine if the vector volume can furnish new information in terms of functional and anatomical aspects.

scholarly journals High-resolution anorectal manometry: A comparison of solid-state and water-perfused catheters

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. e13124 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. P. Rasijeff ◽  
M. Withers ◽  
J. M. Burke ◽  
W. Jackson ◽  
S. M. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Solid State ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Anorectal Manometry ◽  
Perfused Catheters

Impaired deglutitive EGJ relaxation in clinical esophageal manometry: a quantitative analysis of 400 patients and 75 controls

2007 ◽  
Vol 293 (4) ◽  
pp. G878-G885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudip K. Ghosh ◽  
John E. Pandolfino ◽  
John Rice ◽  
John O. Clarke ◽  
Monika Kwiatek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Solid State ◽  
Esophageal Manometry ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
Optimal Method ◽  
High Resolution Manometry ◽  
Single Sensor ◽  
Crural Diaphragm ◽  
Integrated Relaxation Pressure

Assessing deglutitive esophagogastric junction (EGJ) relaxation is an essential focus of clinical manometry. Our aim was to apply automated algorithmic analyses to high-resolution manometry (HRM) studies to ascertain the optimal method for discriminating normal from abnormal deglutitive EGJ relaxation. All 473 subjects (73 controls) were studied with a 36-channel solid-state HRM assembly during water swallows. Patients were classified as: 1) achalasia, 2) postfundoplication, 3) nonachalasia with normal deglutitive EGJ relaxation, or 4) functional obstruction (preserved peristalsis with incomplete EGJ relaxation). Automated computer programs assessed the adequacy of EGJ relaxation by using progressively complex analysis routines to compensate for esophageal shortening, crural diaphragm contraction, and catheter movement, all potential confounders. The single-sensor method of assessing EGJ relaxation had a sensitivity of only 52% for detecting achalasia. Of the automated HRM analysis paradigms tested, the 4-s integrated relaxation pressure using a cutoff of 15 mmHg performed optimally with 98% sensitivity and 96% specificity in the detection of achalasia. We also identified a heterogeneous group of 26 patients with functional EGJ obstruction attributed to variant achalasia and other diverse pathology. Although further clinical experience will ultimately judge, it is our expectation that applying rigorous methodology such as described herein to the analysis of HRM studies will improve the consistency in the interpretation of clinical manometry and prove useful in guiding clinical management.

A novel model used to compare water–perfused and solid–state anorectal manometry

2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. G. Florisson ◽  
J. C. G. Coolen ◽  
I. P. Bissett ◽  
L. D. Plank ◽  
B. R. Parry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid State ◽  
Anorectal Manometry ◽  
Novel Model

scholarly journals The esophageal manometry with gas-perfused catheters

Open Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 232-236
Author(s):  
Sven Höhne ◽  
Martin Arndt ◽  
Viola Hesse
Keyword(s):  
Solid State ◽  
Esophageal Manometry ◽  
Gas Flow ◽  
Normal Values ◽  
Inexpensive Method ◽  
Suitable Alternative ◽  
Demeester Score ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Perfused Catheters

AbstractBackgroundThe well-established methods for esophageal manometry have some disadvantages: the-water-perfused catheters needs calibration by gravity and measuring in supine position, and the solid-state catheters are very expensive. Manometry using gas-perfused catheters is a suitable alternative. There have been only a few publications about this.Objectives and methodsThe results for esophageal manometry in 1700 patients were retrospectively analyzed based on the clinical reports and the manometry data. The gas-perfusion manometry was critically assessed.ResultsThe mean age was 54 years. The indications for esophageal manometry were GER symptoms in 58.5% (pathological DeMeester score in 41.8%), dysphagia in 12.4%, and already known achalasia in 8.9%. Motility disorders could be found in 40% of the patients with GER symptoms (51% of the patients with pathological DeMeester score), and in 88% of achalasia patients. The resting LES pressure was 8.9±5.94 mmHg with GER symptoms, 16.4±12.79 mmHg without GER symptoms, and 26.8±14.03 mmHg with achalasia. The relaxation LES pressure was 20.0±10.93 mmHg in achalasia patients, and 8.3±5.77 mmHg in the others.The gas-perfusion manometry was well tolerated by all patients without any serious complications.DiscussionManometry using gas-perfused catheters is an easy to handle and inexpensive method to investigate the esophageal motility. The suitability of gas perfusion with helium for esophageal manometry depends on physical and technical requirements, such as a constant gas flow, a dead space in the transducer, and the catheter being as small as possible. In consideration of this, the detection of the pressure changing in swallowing acts is excellent. The measured LES pressures are generally lower than with other methods like with water-perfused or solid-state catheters, possibly because of the higher compliance in a gas-filled surrounding. The normal values in gas-perfusion manometry are comparable but not identical with the values of other manometric methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document