Ambulatory long-term pH monitoring in pigs

  • K. A. Gawad
  • R. Wachowiak
  • C. Rempf
  • W. J. Tiefenbacher
  • T. Strate
  • E. G. Achilles
  • C. Blöchle
  • J. R. Izbicki
Original article

Abstract

Background: pH monitoring has been established as the “gold standard” in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux. Evaluation of experimental antireflux therapy should therefore also include this technique, but a suitable technique in an experimental model did not exist so far. The aim of our study was to establish a reliable method for the evaluation of an experimental reflux model in pigs. Methods: A total of 33 German Landrace pigs with an average body weight of 56 (50.2–67.2) kg were included. pH monitoring was performed before and after open cardiomyotomy in each animal. All manipulations were performed under general anesthesia. After manometric localization of the gastroesophageal high-pressure zone, a standard pH probe was inserted into the pharynx through a small needle-punctured canal on the side of the animal’s snout and placed under endoscopic guidance with the proximal sensor 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and the distal sensor in the stomach for reference. The harness to carry the pH recorder on the animal’s back consisted of a modified belly strap that enabled the animal to move around without limitation. For analysis the same threshold levels were defined as in humans. Gastroesophageal reflux was induced by cardiomyotomy. Results: The placement of the standard pH probe was possible in all cases. Inserting the probe on the side of the snout left the animals free to nuzzle, which complies with the normal habits of pigs, without breaking the probes and without being compromised in their natural behavior. Repeated punctures for multiple measurements were easily feasible. We performed up to three examinations in each individual animal. Recording was performed for 48 h. A mean number of 67.3 (±9.7) acidic refluxes were registered. The mean number of long acidic refluxes was 3.2 (±0.75). For an average total time of 75.5 (±14.3) min the pH was below 4 accounting for a fraction time pH below 4 of 3.5% (±0.68%). Following cardiomyotomy the number of acidic refluxes increased significantly to 166.1 (±21.8) and the number of long refluxes to 17.74 (±3.35). The total time of pH below 4 increased to 371.3 (±62) min so that the fraction time pH below 4 was 14.5% (p = 0.0006). Conclusion: pH monitoring should be mandatory in any investigation of antireflux therapy. Our method is easy and secure to perform. It is suitable for other gastrointestinal investigations (Bilitec, long-term manometry) that could be carried out using the same technique. The described data represent the basis for other investigations of experimental antireflux therapy.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, M, Van Gelder, A 1977Esophageal intraluminal pH recording in the assessment of gastroesophageal reflux and its consequences.Dig Dis Sci22365370Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attwood, SE, De Meester, TR, Bremner, CG, Barlow, AP, Hinder, RA 1989Alkaline gastroesophageal reflux in the development of the complications in Barrett’s columnar lined lower oesophagus.Surgery106764770Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berguer, R, Stiegmann, GV, Yamamoto, M, Kim, J, Mansour, A, Denton, J, Norton, W, Angelchik, JP 1991Minimal access surgery for gastroesophageal reflux: laparoscopic placement of the Angelchik prosthesis in pigs.Surg Endosc5123126Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bessell, JR, Pike, G, Jamicson, GG, Maddern, GJ 1995Physiological outcome following laparoscopic highly selective vagotomy.A controlled study in a pig model. Surg Endosc912831288Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, TH, Boone, N, Vitale, GC 1988A harness for 24-hour pH-monitoring in the dog.J Invest Surg1129132Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carugno, F, Donohue, JH, Moreno, E, Byrne, J, Hodge, DO, Ilstrup, DM, Sarr, MG 1998Development of an adjustable prosthesis for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux; preliminary results in a porcine model.ASAIO44140143Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clemente, G, Manni, R, Vecchio, FM, Rizzo, S, Zaccara, A, Scalia, G, Pezzolla, F, Berruto, A, Asole, F 1987The importance of gastric emptying in reflux esophagitis: an experimental research on pigs.J Surg Res42227231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, DJ, Benjamin, SB, Graeber, GM, Castell, DO, Patrick, DH, Cordova, C, Dachman, A, Friedman, A 1986Evaluation of the Angelchik antireflux prosthesis using a model for esophageal reflux in rhesus monkeys.Ann Thorac Surg41135142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Meester, TR, Wang, CL, Wernly, JA, Bermudez, G, Johnson, LF, Skinner, DB 1980Technique indications and clinical use of 24 hour esophageal pH-monitoring.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg79656670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donahue, PE, Carvalho, PJ, Davis, PE, Shen, YJ, Miidla, I, Bombeck, CT, Nyhus, LM 1990Endoscopic sclerosis of the gastric cardia for prevention of experimental gastroesophageal reflux.Gastrointest Endosc36253258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans, DF 1987Twenty-four hour ambulatory esophageal pH-monitoring: an update.Br J Surg74157161Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fein, M, Fuchs, KH, Bohrer, T, Freys, SM, Thiede, A 1996Fiberoptic technique for 24 bile reflux monitoring: standards and values for gastric monitoring.Dig Dis Sci41216225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Freys, SM, Fuchs, KH, Heimbucher, J, Thiede, A 1997Tailored augmentation of the lower esophageal sphincter in experimental antireflux operations.Surg Endosc1111831188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuchs, KH, DeMeester, TR, Albertucci, M 1987Specificity and sensitivity of objective diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease.Surgery102575580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gillen, P, Keeling, D, Byrne, PJ, West, AB, Hennessy, TP 1988Experimental columnar metaplasia in the canine esophagus.Br J Surg75113115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gralnek, IM 2001Diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the primary care setting: can health-related quality of life play a role?Am J Gastroenterol96S5456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heij, HA, Seldenrijk, CA, Vos, A 1991Anterior gastropexy prevents gastrostomy-induced gastroesophageal reflux: an experimental study in piglets.J Pediatr Surg26557559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joelsson, BE, De Meester, TR, Skinner, DB, LaFontaine, E, Waters, PF, O’Sullivan, G 1982The role of the esophageal body in the antireflux mechanism.Surgery92417423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson, LF, Demeester, TR 1974Twenty-four-hour pH monitoring of the distal esophagus. A quantitative measure of gastroesophageal reflux.Am J Gasteroenterol62325332Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, LF, DeMeester, TR 1986Developmentof the 24-hour intraesophageal pH monitoring composite scoring system.J Clin Gastroenterol821Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kadirkamanathan, SS, Yazaki, E, Evans, DF, Hepworth, CC, Gong, F, Swain, CP 1999An ambulant porcine model of acid reflux used to evaluate endoscopic gastroplasty.Gut44782788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller, FA, Doberneck, RC 1967Diagnosis of the acid peptic diathesis by continuous pH analysis.Surg Clin N Am4713251329Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pellegrini, CA, De Meester, TR, Wernley, JA, Johnson, LF, Skinner, DB 1978Alkaline gastroesophageal reflux.Am J Surg135177184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schopf, BW, Blair, G, Dong, S, Troger, K 1997A porcine model of gastroesophageal reflux.J Invest Surg10105114Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samelson, SL, Weiser, HF, Bombeck, CT, Siewert, JR, Ludtke, FE, Hoelscher, AH, Abuabara, SF, Nyhus, LM 1983A new concept in the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux.Ann Surg197254259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siewert, JR, Jennewein, HM, Waldeck, F, Peiper, HJ 1973Experimentelle und klinische Untersuchungen zum Wirkungsmechanismus der Fundoplicatio.Langenbecks Arch Chir333522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spencer, J 1968The use of prolonged pH recording in the diagnosis of gastro-esophageal reflux.Br J Surg55864Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watson, DI, Mathew, G, Pike, G, Baigrie, J 1998Efficiacy of anterior, posterior and total fundoplication in an experimental model.Br J Surg8510061009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. A. Gawad
    • 1
  • R. Wachowiak
    • 1
  • C. Rempf
    • 1
  • W. J. Tiefenbacher
    • 1
  • T. Strate
    • 1
  • E. G. Achilles
    • 1
  • C. Blöchle
    • 1
  • J. R. Izbicki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital Hamburg–Eppendorf, University of Hamburg, Martinstr. 52, D-20246 HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations