Skip to main content

A Short History of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry

Dysphagia volume 38, pages 586–595 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

High-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) utilizes sufficient pressure sensors such that intraluminal pressure is monitored as a continuum along luminal length, similar to time viewed as a continuum on polygraph tracings in ‘conventional’ manometry. When HRM is coupled with pressure topography plotting, and pressure amplitude is transformed into spectral colors with isobaric areas indicated by same-colored regions, “Clouse plots” are generated. HRM has several advantages compared to the technology that it replaced: (1) the contractility of the entire esophagus can be viewed simultaneously in a uniform standardized format, (2) standardized objective metrics of peristaltic and sphincter function can be systematically applied for interpretation, and (3) topographic patterns of contractility are more easily recognized with greater reproducibility. Leveraging these advantages led to the current standard for the interpretation of clinical esophageal HRM studies, the Chicago Classification (CC), now in its fourth iteration. Compared to conventional manometry, HRM has vastly improved the sensitivity for detecting achalasia, largely due to the objectivity and accuracy of identification of impaired esophagogastric junction (EGJ) relaxation. Additionally, it has led to the subcategorization of achalasia into three clinically relevant subtypes, differentiated by the contractile function of the esophageal body, and identified an additional disorder of EGJ outflow obstruction wherein esophageal peristalsis is preserved. Headway has also been made in understanding hypocontractile and hypercontractile conditions. In summary, HRM and the CC process have revolutionized our understanding of esophageal motility and motility disorders. Moving forward, there will always be remaining challenges, but we now have the tools to meet them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Adapted from Pal et al. [10]

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Murray JA, Clouse RE, Conklin JL. Components of the standard oesophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2003;15:591–606.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arndorfer RC, Stef JJ, Dodds WJ, et al. Improved infusion system for intraluminal esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology. 1977;73:23–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stef JJ, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, et al. Intraluminal esophageal manometry: an analysis of variables affecting recording fidelity of peristaltic pressures. Gastroenterology. 1974;67:221–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dent J. A new technique for continuous sphincter pressure measurement. Gastroenterology. 1976;71:263–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gyawali CP. High resolution manometry: the Ray Clouse legacy. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24(Suppl 1):2–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Orlowski J, Dodds WJ, Linehan JH, et al. Requirements for accurate manometric recording of pharyngeal and esophageal peristaltic pressure waves. Invest Radiol. 1982;17:567–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clouse RE, Staiano A, Alrakawi A, et al. Application of topographical methods to clinical esophageal manometry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2720–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clouse RE, Staiano A, Alrakawi A. Development of a topographic analysis system for manometric studies in the gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:395–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clouse RE, Staiano A. Topography of the esophageal peristaltic pressure wave. Am J Physiol. 1991;261:G677–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pal A, Williams RB, Cook IJ, et al. Intrabolus pressure gradient identifies pathological constriction in the upper esophageal sphincter during flow. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2003;285:G1037–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ, American GA. AGA technical review on the clinical use of esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:209–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE, Zhang Q, et al. Deglutitive upper esophageal sphincter relaxation: a study of 75 volunteer subjects using solid-state high-resolution manometry. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006;291:G525–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Staiano A, Clouse RE. Detection of incomplete lower esophageal sphincter relaxation with conventional point-pressure sensors. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3258–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Castell DO. High resolution manometry: a word of caution. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2657–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE, Rice J, et al. Impaired deglutitive EGJ relaxation in clinical esophageal manometry: a quantitative analysis of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2007;293:G878–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pandolfino JE, Kwiatek MA, Nealis T, et al. Achalasia: a new clinically relevant classification by high-resolution manometry. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1526–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ. Oesophageal high-resolution manometry: moving from research into clinical practice. Gut. 2008;57:405–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kahrilas PJ, Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE. Esophageal motility disorders in terms of pressure topography: the Chicago Classification. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42:627–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Scherer JR, Kwiatek MA, Soper NJ, et al. Functional esophagogastric junction obstruction with intact peristalsis: a heterogeneous syndrome sometimes akin to achalasia. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:2219–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24(Suppl 1):57–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27:160–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yadlapati R, Kahrilas PJ, Fox MR, et al. Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0((c)). Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33:e14058.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Yadlapati R, Pandolfino JE, Fox MR, et al. What is new in Chicago Classification version 4.0? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;33:e14053.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Clouse RE, Prakash C. Topographic esophageal manometry: an emerging clinical and investigative approach. Dig Dis. 2000;18:64–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Salvador R, Dubecz A, Polomsky M, et al. A new era in esophageal diagnostics: the image-based paradigm of high-resolution manometry. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:1035–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gyawali CP. Making the most of imperfect high-resolution manometry studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:1015–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pandolfino JE, Kim H, Ghosh SK, et al. High-resolution manometry of the EGJ: an analysis of crural diaphragm function in GERD. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1056–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rengarajan A, Gyawali CP. High-resolution manometry can characterize esophagogastric junction morphology and predict esophageal reflux burden. J Clin Gastroenterol 2019.

  30. Carlson DA, Ravi K, Kahrilas PJ, et al. Diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders: esophageal pressure topography vs. Conventional Line Tracing Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:967–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roman S, Huot L, Zerbib F, et al. High-resolution manometry improves the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders in patients with dysphagia: a randomized multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:372–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gyawali CP, Patel A. Esophageal motor function: technical aspects of manometry. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014;24:527–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Triggs JR, Carlson DA, Beveridge C, et al. Upright integrated relaxation pressure facilitates characterization of esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019.

  35. Fornari F, Bravi I, Penagini R, et al. Multiple rapid swallowing: a complementary test during standard oesophageal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009;21:718-e41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Elvevi A, Mauro A, Pugliese D, et al. Usefulness of low- and high-volume multiple rapid swallowing during high-resolution manometry. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47:103–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Osmanoglou E, Van Der Voort IR, Fach K, et al. Oesophageal transport of solid dosage forms depends on body position, swallowing volume and pharyngeal propulsion velocity. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2004;16:547–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sweis R, Anggiansah A, Wong T, et al. Assessment of esophageal dysfunction and symptoms during and after a standardized test meal: development and clinical validation of a new methodology utilizing high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26:215–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sweis R, Heinrich H, Fox M, et al. Variation in esophageal physiology testing in clinical practice: results from an international survey. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2017.

  40. Shaker A, Stoikes N, Drapekin J, et al. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high-resolution manometry reflect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1706–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Mauro A, Savarino E, De Bortoli N, et al. Optimal number of multiple rapid swallows needed during high-resolution esophageal manometry for accurate prediction of contraction reserve. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30:e13253.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hasak S, Brunt LM, Wang D, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with postfundoplication dysphagia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:1982–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Quader F, Rogers B, Sievers T, et al. Contraction reserve with ineffective esophageal motility on esophageal high-resolution manometry is associated with lower acid exposure times compared with absent contraction reserve. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:1981–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Marin I, Cisternas D, Abrao L, et al. Normal values of esophageal pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test in healthy subjects: results of a multicenter study. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Marin I, Serra J. Patterns of esophageal pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test in patients with esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28:543–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ang D, Hollenstein M, Misselwitz B, et al. Rapid Drink Challenge in high-resolution manometry: an adjunctive test for detection of esophageal motility disorders. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016.

  47. Biasutto D, Mion F, Garros A, et al. Rapid drink challenge test during esophageal high resolution manometry in patients with esophago-gastric junction outflow obstruction. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30:e13293.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Woodland P, Gabieta-Sonmez S, Arguero J, et al. 200 mL rapid drink challenge during high-resolution manometry best predicts objective esophagogastric junction obstruction and correlates with symptom severity. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;24:410–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Gyawali CP, Roman S, Bredenoord AJ, et al. Classification of esophageal motor findings in gastro-esophageal reflux disease: conclusions from an international consensus group. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29:e13104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ang D, Misselwitz B, Hollenstein M, et al. Diagnostic yield of high-resolution manometry with a solid test meal for clinically relevant, symptomatic oesophageal motility disorders: serial diagnostic study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:654–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    C. Prakash Gyawali

  2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, The Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 St Clair St, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL, 60611-2951, USA

    Peter J. Kahrilas

Authors
  1. C. Prakash Gyawali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Kahrilas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Kahrilas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest exist. No writing assistance obtained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gyawali, C.P., Kahrilas, P.J. A Short History of High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry. Dysphagia 38, 586–595 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10372-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10372-7

Keywords

  • High-resolution manometry
  • Clouse plots
  • Chicago Classification