Comparison of lower oesophageal sphincter pressure measurement using circumferential <i>vs</i> unidirectional transducers

Pursnani, Kishore; Oeffner, C.; Gideon, R. Matthew; Do, Castell

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2982.1997.d01-40.x

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the volunteers underwent the two manometries in random order and the bias may be reduced as much as possible. Pursnani et al has demonstrated a high degree of correlation between measurements made with circumferential transducers compared to the sum of four unidirectional transducers in measuring resting LES pressures [6]. Our further analysis also presented the consistency of the measurements from the two systems by Bland–Altman plots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Besides, the patterns of luminal pressure perception and conversion of the pressure signal into an electrical signal are different, pressure measurements from the two manometers may exist differences. Castell et al [5] and Pursnani et al [6] performed trials comparing SSC and WPC focused on pharyngeal, upper oesophageal sphincter and lower oesophageal sphincter pressure measurement. However, in the times of their trials, the manometry catheter was only equipped with small number of transducers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

Wang

Duan

et al. 2012

BMC Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo 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.Methods12 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.ResultsDuring 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).ConclusionsIn conclusion, most pressure measurements were consistent between WPM and SSM. Patients tolerated better with WPC, while for operators, the SSC presented more convenient.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

Wang

Duan

et al. 2012

BMC Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They had the advantage of an extremely high response rate, making them useful for detecting the rapid pressure changes in the UES, but the disadvantage of fragility, high cost, and the inconvenience of repair if one of the transducers on a catheter malfunctioned. 49 The technology of Micro-Electrical-Mechanical-Systems (MEMS) progressed rapidly, allowing transducers to be extremely small. 50 For motility studies, it was eventually possible to create a flexible catheter only 4.2 mm in diameter, with 12 tiny transducers round the circumference at 1 cm intervals.…”

Section: The Emergence Of High Resolution Manometrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Esophageal Motility Testing: From Kronecker to Clouse

Grubic

Crookes

2021

Foregut: The Journal of the American Foregut Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esophageal motility, the science of quantifying the mechanical function of the esophagus, was initiated by Hugo Kronecker in Germany in 1882. Little progress was made until after World War II, when motility studies began in the Mayo Clinic and Boston University. After 1960, several key figures promoted the science, including Lauran Harris, Don Castell, Jerry Dodds, Tom DeMeester, Peter Kahrilas, and Ray Clouse. All were inspirational teachers and mentors as well as scientists. The technical developments from balloons and perfused catheters to the current solid-state catheters and sophisticated software has provided insights which have helped physicians to treat patients with dysfunction of the esophagus with increasing success.

show abstract

Esophageal Motility Testing

Roberts

Castell

2010

Practical Gastroenterology and Hepatology: Esophagus and Stomach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of lower oesophageal sphincter pressure measurement using circumferential vs unidirectional transducers

Abstract: UND and CMF transducers provide identical measurements when evaluating the LOS.

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

Evolution of Esophageal Motility Testing: From Kronecker to Clouse

Esophageal Motility Testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About