4.4 Article

Correlation Between Timed Barium Esophagogram and Esophageal Transit Scintigraphy Results in Achalasia

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 60, 期 8, 页码 2390-2397

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-3659-z

关键词

Achalasia; Manometry; Timed barium esophagogram; Esophageal transit scintigraphy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Timed barium esophagogram (TBE) and esophageal transit scintigraphy (ETS) have been adopted as useful ways to evaluate achalasia patients. TBE has merit as a simple, non-invasive, and convenient method. Aims The study sought to compare the results of these two tests and verify their usefulness in evaluating treatment response. In addition, we assessed whether TBE could effectively replace ETS through correlation analysis. Methods The medical records of 50 achalasia patients treated between September 2011 and June 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. The height and width of the barium column at 1, 2, and 5 min were measured by TBE. Half-life (T-1/2, min) and R-30 (percentage of remaining radioactivity 30 s after radioisotope ingestion) were measured by ETS. Both tests were performed before and after treatment, and the tests were carried out 1 and 2 days after procedures. And we analyzed the correlation between the parameters from the two tests. Results The parameters of TBE and ETS were improved after treatment (p<0.05). Before treatment, the height and width results at 5 min from TBE positively correlated with the T-1/2 parameter from ETS (correlation coefficients of 0.59 and 0.75, respectively). After treatment, the correlation coefficients between the 5-min height and width of the barium column by TBE and T-1/2 by ETS were 0.55 and 0.46, respectively. Conclusions Both TBE and ETS are useful modalities in assessing esophageal emptying and response to achalasia treatment. TBE and ETS results have a statistically significant correlation both pre- and post-treatment. We suggest that TBE could effectively replace ETS for the assessment of achalasia.

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