Abstract
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common and chronic disease. The prevalence of the GERD was 17.1%, 15.4%, and 10.0% in Europe, North America, and Asia, respectively. Although its prevalence has been relatively low in Asia, the increasing trend has been remarkable recently. GERD patients usually use proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for symptoms control through reducing acid production, which results in increased medical expenditures. However, up to 40% of patients complain persistent symptoms despite PPI therapy. Although most patients are initially treated with acid-suppressive therapy, many require diagnostic testing to objectively assess for the presence and degree of esophageal acid exposure. Furthermore, the recent increase in prevalence of patients with partial response or lack of response to aggressive acid suppression has raised questions about the role of less acidic refluxate in esophageal injury as well as patient symptoms. Esophageal function testing for GERD has evolved greatly to detect esophageal acid reflux and abnormal esophageal movement. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring is an essential method in patients with GERD to make an objective diagnosis before surgical interventions. With the help of the wireless capsule pH monitoring, measurements can be made under more physiological conditions as well as longer recordings can be performed because the examination can be better tolerated by patients. Multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH technology has been developed and currently the most sensitive tool to evaluate patients with reflux symptoms. The use of esophageal manometry is suitable for the detection of esophageal movement patterns and motility abnormalities such as achalasia. Therefore, esophageal ambulatory pH monitoring and manometry are often used in assessments prior to laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery and in patients with reflux symptoms refractory to medical treatment. Taking these recent advances into consideration, this chapter focuses primarily on the indications, technique, equipment, and interpretation of esophageal ambulatory reflux monitoring and manometry in the evaluation of esophageal symptoms.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R, Global Consensus Group. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(8):1900–20.
El-Serag HB, Sweet S, Winchester CC, et al. Update on the epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut. 2014;63:871–80.
Dhiman RK, Saraswat VA, Naik SR. Ambulatory esophageal ph monitoring: technique, interpretations, and clinical indications. Dig Dis Sci. 2002;47(2):241–50.
Johnson LF, DeMeester TR. Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol. 1974;62(4):325–32.
Lam HG, Breumelhof R, Roelofs JM, Van Berge Henegouwen GP, Smout AJ. What is the optimal time window in symptom analysis of 24-h esophageal pressure and ph data? Dig Dis Sci. 1994;39(2):402–9.
Wiener GJ, Richter JE, Copper JB, Wu WC, Castell DO. The symptom index: a clinically important parameter of ambulatory 24-h esophageal ph monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol. 1988;83(4):358–61.
Vitale GC, Cheadle WC, Sadek S, Michel ME, Cuschieri A. Computerized 24-h ambulatory esophageal ph monitoring and esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the reflux patient. A comparative study. Ann Surg. 1984;200(6):724–8.
Kahrilas PJ, Quigley EM. Clinical esophageal ph recording: a technical review for practice guideline development. Gastroenterology. 1996;110(6):1982–96.
Booth MI, Stratford J, Dehn TC. Patient self-assessment of test-day symptoms in 24-h pH-metry for suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;36(8):795–9.
Yadlapati R, Vaezi MF, Vela MF, et al. Management options for patients with GERD and persistent symptoms on proton pump inhibitors: recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(7):980–6.
Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Savarino E, et al. Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon consensus. Gut. 2018;67(7):1351–62.
Yadlapati R, Kahrilas PJ, Fox MR, et al. Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(1):e14058.
Laing P, Bress AP, Fang J, Peterson K, Adler DG, Gawron AJ. Trends in diagnoses after implementation of the Chicago classification for esophageal motility disorders (v3.0) for high-resolution manometry studies. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30:1–6.
Fox MR, Pandolfino JE, Sweis R, et al. Inter-observer agreement for diagnostic classification of esophageal motility disorders defined in high-resolution manometry. Dis Esophagus. 2015;28:711–9.
Soudagar AS, Sayuk GS, Gyawali CP. Learners favour high resolution oesophageal manometry with better diagnostic accuracy over conventional line tracings. Gut. 2012;61:798–803.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, B.J. (2023). Diagnostic Tests and Interpretations Before Anti-reflux Surgery. In: Park, S., Burch, M., Park, JM. (eds) Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7173-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7173-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7172-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7173-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)