ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2018
The Esophageal Manometry with Gas-perfused Catheters.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe well-established methods for esophageal manometry have some disadvantages: the-water-perfused catheters needs calibration by gravity and measuring in supine position, and the solid-state catheters are very expensive. Manometry using gas-perfused catheters is a suitable alternative. There have been only a few publications about this. OBJECTIVES AND
methodsThe results for esophageal manometry in 1700 patients were retrospectively analyzed based on the clinical reports and the manometry data. The gas-perfusion manometry was critically assessed.
resultsThe mean age was 54 years. The indications for esophageal manometry were GER symptoms in 58.5% (pathological DeMeester score in 41.8%), dysphagia in 12.4%, and already known achalasia in 8.9%. Motility disorders could be found in 40% of the patients with GER symptoms (51% of the patients with pathological DeMeester score), and in 88% of achalasia patients. The resting LES pressure was 8.9±5.94 mmHg with GER symptoms, 16.4±12.79 mmHg without GER symptoms, and 26.8±14.03 mmHg with achalasia. The relaxation LES pressure was 20.0±10.93 mmHg in achalasia patients, and 8.3±5.77 mmHg in the others.The gas-perfusion manometry was well tolerated by all patients without any serious complications. DISCUSSION: Manometry using gas-perfused catheters is an easy to handle and inexpensive method to investigate the esophageal motility. The suitability of gas perfusion with helium for esophageal manometry depends on physical and technical requirements, such as a constant gas flow, a dead space in the transducer, and the catheter being as small as possible. In consideration of this, the detection of the pressure changing in swallowing acts is excellent. The measured LES pressures are generally lower than with other methods like with water-perfused or solid-state catheters, possibly because of the higher compliance in a gas-filled surrounding. The normal values in gas-perfusion manometry are comparable but not identical with the values of other manometric methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.