Author:
Wang Kun,Duan Li-ping,Ge Ying,Xia Zhi-wei,Xu Zhi-jie
Abstract
Abstract
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 was 40(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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Gastroenterology,General Medicine
Reference13 articles.
1. Murray JA, Clouse RE, Conklin JL: Components of the standard oesophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2003, 15: 591-606. 10.1046/j.1365-2982.2003.00446.x.
2. Holloway RH: Esophageal manometry. 2006, GI Motility online
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. 10.1007/s10151-006-0245-6.
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. 10.1016/j.gie.2008.11.044.
5. Castell JA, Dalton CB, Castell DO: Pharyngeal and upper oesophageal sphincter manometry in humans. Am J Physiol. 1990, 258: G173-178.
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献