A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

BMC Gastroenterology

Zhi-jie Xu¹  Zhi-wei Xia¹  Ying Ge¹  Li-ping Duan¹  Kun Wang¹ 

[1] Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Rd., Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, People’s Republic of China

关键词: Comparative study;    Operators’ convenience;    Patients’ tolerance;    Pressure measurements;    Solid-state manometry (SSM) with 36 sensors;    22-channel water-perfusion manometry;   

Others  :  858309
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-230X-12-157

 received in 2012-05-17, accepted in 2012-11-04,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

To compare the characteristics between 22-channel water-perfusion manometry (WPM) and solid-state manometry (SSM) with 36 sensors of the pressure measurements, as well as patients’ discomfort indices in nose and pharynx, the preparation and operation time of the manometry.

Methods

12 volunteers were included in the study. Each of the volunteers underwent esophageal manometry by both 22-channel water-perfusion catheter (WPC) and solid-state catheter (SSC) with 36 sensors in random order, and separated by 30 min. The subjects gave a VAS score soon after each test. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze the differences and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the consistency of the two systems.

Results

During the wet swallows, there were significant differences between the two systems in three measurements of location of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) upper margin (Z = -2.11, P = 0.035), LES relax ratio(Z = -2.20, P = 0.028) and IRP4s (Z = -2.05, P = 0.041). During the jelly pocket swallows, LES relax ratio measurements of the two systems showed significant differences (Z = -2.805, P = 0.005). Further Bland–Altman plots analysis presented good agreement between the two systems measurements of location of LES upper margin, LES relax ratio and IRP4s. The discomfort indices of subjects’ nasal sensation were higher when inserting the solid-state catheter [5(3.75-5)] than water-perfusion one (2.5(2-4)) (Z = -2.471, P = 0.013), as well as the discomfort indices of pharyngeal sensation (7.5(4.75-9) vs. 4.5(3.75-6.5)), (Z = -2.354, P = 0.019). The preparation time for WPC was40(39-41) minutes, which was much longer than that for SSC 32.5(31.75-33) minutes, (Z = -3.087, P = 0.002).And the nurses reported it’s much easier to insert WPC (Z = -3.126, P = 0.002).

Conclusions

In conclusion, most pressure measurements were consistent between WPM and SSM. Patients tolerated better with WPC, while for operators, the SSC presented more convenient.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Wang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Murray JA, Clouse RE, Conklin JL: Components of the standard oesophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2003, 15:591-606.
• [2]Holloway RH: Esophageal manometry. GI Motility online; 2006.
• [3]Florisson JMG, Coolen JCG, Bissett IP, et al.: A novel model used to compare water-perfused and solid-state anorectal manometry. Tech Coloproctol 2006, 10:17-20.
• [4]Draganov PV, Kowalczyk L, Forsmark CE: Prospective trial comparing solid-state catheter and waterperfusion triple-lumen catheter for sphincter of Oddi manometry done at the time of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2009, 70:92-95.
• [5]Castell JA, Dalton CB, Castell DO: Pharyngeal and upper oesophageal sphincter manometry in humans. Am J Physiol 1990, 258:G173-178.
• [6]Pursnani KG, Oeffner C, Gideon RM, Castell DO: Comparison of lower oesophageal sphincter pressure measurement using circumferential vs. unidirectional transducers. Neurogastroenterol Motil 1997, 9:177-180.
• [7]Bredenoord AJ, Hebbard GS: Technical aspects of clinical high-resolution manometry studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24(Suppl. 1):5-10.
• [8]Arndorfer RC, Stef JJ, Dodds WJ, Linehan JH, Hogan WJ: Improved infusion system for intraluminal esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology 1977, 73:23-27.
• [9]Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, et al.: Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 24(Suppl. 1):57-65.
• [10]Marsh RE, Perdue CL, Awad ZT, et al.: Is analysis of lower esophageal sphincter vector volumes of value in diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease? World J Gastroenterol 2003, 9:174-178.
• [11]Pehl C, Boccali I, Hennig M, Schepp W: pH probe positioning for 24-hour pH-metry by manometry or pH step-up. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004, 16:375-382.
• [12]Can MF, Yagci G, Cetiner S, et al.: Accurate positioning of the 24-hour pH monitoring catheter: Agreement between manometry and pH step-up method in two patient positions. World J Gastroenterol 2007, 13:6197-6202.
• [13]Bogte A, Bredenoord AJ, Oors J, et al.: Reproducibility of esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011, 23:e271-e276.