Abstract
Background
Videoesophagram (VEG) and esophageal manometry (EM) are components of the preoperative evaluation for foregut surgery. EM is able to identify motility disorders and diminished contractility that may alter surgical planning. However, there are no clearly defined criteria to guide this. Reliable manometry is not always easily obtained, and therefore its necessity in routine preoperative evaluation is unclear. We hypothesized that if a patient has normal videoesophagram, manometry does not reveal clinically significant esophageal dysfunction.
Methods
We reviewed patients who underwent protocolized videoesophagram and manometry at our institution. Measures of esophageal motility including the mean distal contractile integral (DCI), mean wave amplitude (MWA), and percent of peristaltic swallows (PPS) were analyzed. The Chicago Classification was used for diagnostic criteria of motility disorders. Normal VEG was defined as stasis of liquid barium on less than three of five swallows.
Results
There were 418 patients included. 231 patients (55%) had a normal VEG, and 187 patients (45%) had an abnormal VEG. In the normal VEG group, only 2/231 (0.9%) patients had both abnormal DCI and PPS, 1/231 (0.4%) patients had both abnormal DCI and MWA and no patients had both abnormal MWA and PPS. There were no patients with achalasia or absent contractility and 1 patient with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) in the normal VEG group. This was significantly different from the abnormal VEG group which included 4 patients with achalasia, 1 with absent contractility and 22 with IEM (p < 0.0001). The negative predictive value of VEG was 99.6% and the sensitivity was 96.4%.
Conclusions
A normal videoesophagram reliably excluded the presence of clinically significant esophageal dysmotility that would alter surgical planning. Routine manometry is not warranted in patients with normal videoesophagram, and should be reserved for patients with abnormal VEG.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jobe BA, Richter JE, Hoppo T, Peters JH, Bell R, Dengler WC, DeVault K, Fass R, Gyawali CP, Kahrilas PJ, Lacy BE, Pandolfino JE, Patti MG, Swanstrom LL, Kurian AA, Vela MF, Vaezi M, DeMeester TR (2013) Preoperative diagnostic workup before antireflux surgery: an evidence and experience-based consensus of the Esophageal Diagnostic Advisory Panel. J Am Coll Surg 217:586–597
Singhal V, Khaitan L (2015) Preoperative evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surg Clin North Am 95:615–627
Tatum R (2013) Preoperative esophageal evaluation of patients being considered for antireflux surgery. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 9:249–251
Herregods TV, Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ (2015) Normative values in esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 27:175–187
Fibbe C, Layer P, Keller J, Strate U, Emmermann A, Zornig C (2001) Esophageal motility in reflux disease before and after fundoplication: a prospective, randomized, clinical, and manometric study. Gastroenterology 121:5–14
Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Gyawali CP, Roman S, Smout AJ, Pandolfino JE, International High Resolution Manometry Working G (2015) The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil 27:160–174
Khan A, Massey B, Rao S, Pandolfino J (2018) Esophageal function testing: billing and coding update. Neurogastroenterol Motil 30(1):e13158
Strate U, Emmermann A, Fibbe C, Layer P, Zornig C (2008) Laparoscopic fundoplication: Nissen versus Toupet two-year outcome of a prospective randomized study of 200 patients regarding preoperative esophageal motility. Surg Endosc 22:21–30
Herron DM, Swanstrom LL, Ramzi N, Hansen PD (1999) Factors predictive of dysphagia after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Surg Endosc 13:1180–1183
Tsuboi K, Lee TH, Legner A, Yano F, Dworak T, Mittal SK (2011) Identification of risk factors for postoperative dysphagia after primary anti-reflux surgery. Surg Endosc 25:923–929
Montenovo M, Tatum RP, Figueredo E, Martin AV, Vu H, Quiroga E, Pellegrini CA, Oelschlager BK (2009) Does combined multichannel intraluminal esophageal impedance and manometry predict postoperative dysphagia after laparoscopic Nissen. fundoplication? Dis Esophagus 22:656–663
Ott DJ, Chen YM, Hewson EG, Richter JE, Dalton CB, Gelfand DW, Wu WC (1989) Esophageal motility: assessment with synchronous video tape fluoroscopy and manometry. Radiology 173:419–422
Shakespear JS, Blom D, Huprich JE, Peters JH (2004) Correlation of radiographic and manometric findings in patients with ineffective esophageal motility. Surg Endosc 18:459–462
Fuller L, Huprich JE, Theisen J, Hagen JA, Crookes PF, Demeester SR, Bremner CG, Demeester TR, Peters JH (1999) Abnormal esophageal body function: radiographic-manometric correlation. Am Surg 65:911–914
O’Rourke AK, Lazar A, Murphy B, Castell DO, Martin-Harris B (2016) Utility of esophagram versus high-resolution manometry in the detection of esophageal dysmotility. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 154:888–891
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Evan T. Alicuben, Kamran Samakar, Namir Katkhouda, Adrian Dobrowolsky, Kulmeet Sandhu have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Nikolai Bildzukewicz and John C. Lipham are consultant for Torax Medical, Inc.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alicuben, E.T., Bildzukewicz, N., Samakar, K. et al. Routine esophageal manometry is not useful in patients with normal videoesophagram. Surg Endosc 33, 1650–1653 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6456-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6456-x