4.4 Article

Trans-esophagogastric junction pressure gradients during straight leg raise maneuver on high-resolution manometry associate with large hiatus hernias

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13836

关键词

high-resolution manometry; provocative testing; straight leg raise; trans-esophagogastric junction gradients

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Straight leg raise (SLR) while supine increases intra-abdominal pressure. We hypothesized that elevations in intra-abdominal pressure would transmit into the thoracic cavity if the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) was disrupted. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing esophageal HRM were included if they had adequate SLR (hip flexion with knees extended for >= 5 seconds while supine). EGJ morphology was subtyped based on lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and crural diaphragm (CD) location (type 1: LES and CD overlap; type 2: separation of < 3 cm; type 3: separation of >= 3 cm). EGJ tone was assessed using EGJ contractile integral (EGJ-CI). HRM studies were analyzed according to Chicago Classification v3.0. Mean and peak intra-thoracic and abdominal pressures were measured at baseline and during SLR using on-screen software tools. Trans-EGJ gradients were compared, and pressure gradient Of 430 patients, 248 (57.5 +/- 0.9 years, 69.4% F) completed SLR. EGJ morphology was type 1 in 122 (49.2%), type 2 in 56 (22.6%) and type 3 in 40 (16.1%). In types 1 and 2 EGJ, neither the mean nor peak trans-EGJ pressure gradient changed with SLR (P >= .17 for each). In contrast, in type 3 EGJ, peak pressure gradient decreased significantly following SLR (3.5 +/- 1.8 mmHg vs. -8.6 +/- 4.8 mmHg,P = .01). More type 3 EGJ patients equalized peak (65%) pressures across EGJ compared with types 1 and 2 (27%,P < .001). Conclusions and Inferences The evaluation of intra-abdominal and intra-thoracic pressures with SLR during esophageal HRM can provide evidence of physiological disruption of the EGJ barrier.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据