Current Gastroenterology Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 182–189 | Cite as

Evaluation of esophageal motor disorders in the era of high-resolution manometry and intraluminal impedance

  • John E. Pandolfino
  • William J. Bulsiewicz


The past few years were an exciting time in the study of esophageal motor disorders because new technologies emerged to study esophageal motor function and bolus transit. Although conventional manometry was long considered the “gold standard” for defining esophageal motor disorders, many technologic improvements occurred due to advances in transducer technology, computerization, and graphic data presentation. In addition, a relatively new technology, intraluminal impedance, was incorporated into manometric modalities. The most sophisticated systems now include combined high-resolution manometry with high-resolution impedance. Although these techniques provide more detailed information about esophageal function, whether they improve our ability to diagnose and treat patients more effectively is debatable. However, more recent data support that these advances actually improve our ability to diagnose and treat esophageal motor disorders. This article provides an update on these technologies in clinical practice and how they may be helpful in the future.


Achalasia Lower Esophageal Sphincter Bolus Transit Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance Esophageal Motor Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Spieker MR: Evaluating dysphagia. Am Fam Physician 2000, 61:3639–3648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook IJ, Kahrilas PJ: AGA technical review on management of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology 1999, 116:455–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nayar DS, Khandwala F, Achkar E, et al.: Esophageal manometry: assessment of interpreter consistency. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005, 3:218–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clouse RE, Staiano A: Topography of the esophageal peristaltic pressure wave. Am J Physiol 1991, 261:G677–G684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castell JA, Dalton CB, Castell DO: Pharyngeal and upper esophageal sphincter manometry in humans. Am J Physiol 1990, 258:G173–G178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu J, Parashar VK, Mittal RK: Asymmetry of lower esophageal sphincter pressure: is it related to the muscle thickness or its shape? Am J Physiol 1997, 272:G1509–G1517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clouse RE, Staiano A, Alrakawi A, Haroian L: Application of topographical methods to clinical esophageal manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 2000, 95:2720–2730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pandolfino JE, Ghosh SK, Zhang Q, et al.: Quantifying EGJ morphology and relaxation with high-resolution manometry: a study of 75 asymptomatic volunteers. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2006, 290:G1033–G1040.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grubel C, Hiscock R, Hebbard G: Value of spatiotemporal representation of manometric data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008, 6:525–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pandolfino JE, Ghosh SK, Rice J, et al.: Classifying esophageal motility by pressure topography characteristics: a study of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Gastroenterol 2008, 103:27–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA, Nealis T, et al.: Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology 2008, 135:1526–1533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ: Oesophageal high-resolution manometry: moving from research into clinical practice. Gut 2008, 57:405–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahrilas PJ, Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE: Esophageal motility disorders in terms of pressure topography: the Chicago classification. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008, 42:627–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fass J, Silny J, Braun J, et al.: Measuring esophageal motility with a new intraluminal impedance device. First clinical results in reflux patients. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994, 29:693–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sifrim D, Castell D, Dent J, Kahrilas PJ: Gastro-oesophageal reflux monitoring: review and consensus report on detection and definitions of acid, non-acid, and gas reflux. Gut 2004, 53:1024–1031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simren M, Silny J, Holloway R, et al.: Relevance of ineffective oesophageal motility during oesophageal acid clearance. Gut 2003, 52:784–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen HN, Silny J, Albers D, et al.: Dynamics of esophageal bolus transport in healthy subjects studied using multiple intraluminal impedancometry. Am J Physiol 1997, 273:G958–G964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srinivasan R, Vela MF, Katz PO, et al.: Esophageal function testing using multichannel intraluminal impedance. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001, 280:G457–G462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imam H, Shay S, Ali A, Baker M: Bolus transit patterns in healthy subjects: a study using simultaneous impedance monitoring, videoesophagram, and esophageal manometry. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2005, 288:G1000–G1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tutuian R, Vela MF, Balaji NS, et al.: Esophageal function testing with combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry: multicenter study in healthy volunteers. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003, 1:174–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tutuian R, Castell DO: Combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and manometry clarifies esophageal function abnormalities: study in 350 patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:1011–1019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tutuian R, Mainie I, Agrawal A, et al.: Symptom and function heterogenicity among patients with distal esophageal spasm: studies using combined impedance-manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:464–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bredenoord AJ, Tutuian R, Smout AJ, Castell DO: Technology review: Esophageal impedance monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 2007, 102:187–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Sifrim D, et al.: Aerophagia, gastric, and supragastric belching: a study using intraluminal electrical impedance monitoring. Gut 2004, 53:1561–1565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frieling T, Hermann S, Kuhlbusch R, et al.: Comparison between intraluminal multiple electric impedance measurement and manometry in the human oesophagus. Neurogastroenterol Motil 1996, 8:45–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bulsiewicz WJ, Kahrilas PJ, Kwiatek MA, et al.: Esophageal pressure topography criteria indicative of incomplete bolus clearance: a study utilizing high-resolution impedance manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 2009, submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kahrilas PJ, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ: Effect of peristaltic dysfunction on esophageal volume clearance. Gastroenterology 1988, 94:73–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ren J, Massey BT, Dodds WJ, et al.: Determinants of intrabolus pressure during esophageal peristaltic bolus transport. Am J Physiol 1993, 264:G407–G413.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Medicine Group, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of MedicineNorthwestern University, Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations