Comparison of unidirectional and circumferential manometric measures within the pharyngoesophageal segment: an exploratory study
- 66 Downloads
Notable differences have been identified between low-resolution manometry (LRM) and high-resolution manometry (HRM) in normative data.
This study aimed to investigate within-subject differences between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM solid-state measurement sensors in the pharyngoesophageal segment during swallowing.
Ten healthy subjects (mean 26.9 years) were evaluated with both a 2.10 mm unidirectional catheter and a 2.75 mm circumferential catheter, with randomized order of catheter placement. Unidirectional measurements were made in four directions (posterior, anterior, right-lateral, left-lateral). Pressures and durations were analyzed to compare (1) posterior to anterior and lateral recordings and (2) posterior and average-LRM measures (C-LRM) to HRM measures at same anatomical location.
No significant differences were found in any of the measures across the four radial directions. A lower amplitude was measured in C-LRM compared to HRM for pharyngeal sensors (LRM Sensor 1: − 39.7 mmHg; Sensor 2: − 61.4 mmHg). Compared with posterior-LRM, HRM recorded higher UES pressures (− 12.8 mmHg) and longer UES relaxation durations (− 0.31 s).
This exploratory study is the first to compare within-subject pressures between unidirectional LRM and circumferential HRM. Substantial differences in pharyngeal manometric measures were found, particularly with regard to UES function. This is clinically important as manometry is uniquely able to evaluate UES function and clarify differential diagnoses in patients with dysphagia.
KeywordsPharyngeal manometry High-resolution manometry Deglutition Pharynx
The authors thank Kerstin Erfmann and Katharina Winiker for their collaboration in data collection and inter-rater reliability. The authors acknowledge the Canterbury Medical Research Foundation for its support of this research. EGH provided technical expertise in MATLAB software program and KG conducted the studies. All authors contributed to the research study design, analysis, and manuscript preparation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Pauloski R, Rademaker A, Lazarus C, Boeckxstaens G (2009) Relationship between manometric and videofluoroscopic measures of swallow function in healthy adults and patients treated for head and neck cancer with various modalities. Dysphagia 292(3):342–351Google Scholar
- 4.Pandolfino J (2010) High-resolution manometry: is it better for detecting esophageal disease? Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY) 6(10):632–634Google Scholar
- 18.R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015:67Google Scholar
- 21.Jones CA, Hammer MJ, Hoffman MR, Mcculloch TM (2014) Quantifying contributions of the cricopharyngeus to upper esophageal sphincter pressure changes by means of intramuscular electromyography and high-resolution manometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 123(3):174–182CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar