4.8 Article

Obesity: A challenge to esophagogastric junction integrity

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 130, 期 3, 页码 639-649

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.12.016

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC00646] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [K23 DK062170-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: The aim of the current study was to analyze the relationship between obesity and the morphology of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) pressure segment using high-resolution manometry. Methods: Two hundred eighty-five patients (108 men, aged 18-87) were studied. A solid-state manometric assembly with 36 circumferential sensors spaced 1 cm apart was placed transnasally, and simultaneous intra-esophageal and intragastric pressures were measured over 6-8 respiratory cycles. Separation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and crural diaphragm was quantified by measuring the distance between the two EGJ elements during inspiration. The association between anthropometric variables and pressure values were examined using univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: There was a significant correlation of body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) with intragastric pressure (inspiration, BMI [r = 0.57], WC [r = 0.62] P <.0001; expiration, BMI [r = 0,581, WC [r = 0.64], P <.0001) and gastroesophageal pressure gradient (GEPG) (inspiration, BMI [r 0.37], WC [r = 0,43], P <.0001; expiration, BMI [r = 0.24], WC [r = 0.26], P <.0001). Multivariate analysis adjusting for age, gender, and patient type did not alter the direction or magnitude of this relationship. In addition, obesity was associated with separation of the EGJ pressure components (BMI, r = 0.17, P <.005; WC, r = 0.21, P <.001). Conclusions: Obese subjects are more likely to have EGJ disruption (leading to hiatal hernia) and an augmented GEPG providing a perfect scenario for reflux to occur. Whether or not weight loss can reverse these abnormalities is unknown.

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

4.8
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