4.6 Article

Deglutitive upper esophageal sphincter relaxation: a study of 75 volunteer subjects using solid-state high-resolution manometry

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00081.2006

Keywords

deglutitive sphincter resistance; relaxation interval; intrabolus pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to use a novel high-resolution manometry (HRM) system to establish normative values for deglutitive upper esophageal sphincter (UES) relaxation. Seventy-five asymptomatic controls were studied. A solid-state HRM assembly with 36 circumferential sensors spaced 1 cm apart was positioned to record from the hypopharynx to the stomach. Subjects performed ten 5-ml water swallows and one each of 1-, 10-, and 20-ml volume swallows. Pressure profiles across the UES were analyzed using customized computational algorithms that measured 1) the relaxation interval (RI), 2) the median intrabolus pressure (mIBP) during the RI, and 3) the deglutitive sphincter resistance (DSR) defined as mIBP/RI. The automated analysis succeeded in confirming bolus volume modulation of both the RI and the mIBP with the mean RI ranging from 0.32 to 0.50 s and mIBP ranging from 5.93 to 13.80 mmHg for 1- and 20-ml swallows, respectively. DSR was relatively independent of bolus volume. Peak pharyngeal contraction during the return to the resting state postswallow was almost 300 mmHg, again independent of bolus volume. We performed a detailed analysis of deglutitive UES relaxation with a novel HRM system and customized software. The enhanced spatial resolution of HRM allows for the accurate, automated assessment of UES relaxation and intrabolus pressure characteristics, in both cases confirming the volume-dependent effects and absolute values of these parameters previously demonstrated by detailed analysis of concurrent manometry/fluoroscopy data. Normative values were established to aid in future clinical and investigative studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available