Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 49, Issue 10, pp 1657–1663 | Cite as

Comparison of Air-Coupled Balloon Esophageal and Anorectal Manometry Catheters with Solid-State Esophageal Manometry and Water-Perfused Anorectal Manometry Catheters

  • John C. Fang
  • Kristen Hilden
  • Ashok K. Tuteja
  • Kathryn A. Peterson


Clinical gastrointestinal manometry studies are currently performed with multilumen water-perfused polyvinyl or strain gauge sensor solid-state catheters. A disposable catheter incorporating air-filled balloons has been developed with performance characteristics suitable for esophageal and anorectal manometry studies. Our aim was to compare esophageal and anorectal pressure measurements using this newly developed catheter with measurements obtained using standard solid-state or water-perfused catheters. Measurements of resting LES pressure, esophageal contraction amplitudes, and anorectal rest and squeeze pressures were obtained in 10 healthy volunteers using a solid-state esophageal catheter, a water-perfused anorectal catheter, and air-filled balloon esophageal and anorectal catheters. Correlation coefficient analysis demonstrated that LES pressures, esophageal contraction amplitudes, and anorectal resting and squeeze pressures were not significantly among between the different catheters. We conclude that recently developed air-filled balloon esophageal and anorectal manometry catheters provide very similar measurements of LES, esophageal body, and anorectal sphincter pressures compared to presently used manometry catheters.

esophageal manometry anorectal manometry gastrointestinal motility manometry methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hawkins D: Risky recycling. US NewsWord Report 20:62-67, 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang R, Ng S, Nichol M, Laine L: A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and resuable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 51:266-270, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rizzo J, Bernstein D, Gress F: A performance, safety and cost comparison of reusable and disposable biopsy forceps: A prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 51:257-261, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dowdle M: Evaluating a newintrauterine pressure catheter. J Reprod Med 42:505-513, 1997Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowdle M: Comparison of two intrauterine pressure catheters during labor. J Reprod Med 48:501-505, 2003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pollak JT, Davila GW: A comparsion between air-charged versus microtransducer catheter urodynamic evaluation of urethral function. Abstract, AUGS, Oral poster 48, 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao SSC, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, Enck P, Tougas G, Wald A: Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Mot 14:553-559, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diederich LL: Esophageal manometry procedure. In, Castell DO, Diederich LL, Castell JA (eds). Highlands Ranch, CO, Sandhill Scientific, 2000, pp. 41-56Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castell DO: Historical perspectives and current use of esophageal manometry. In Esophageal Motility and pH Testing: Techniques and Interpretation. Castell DO, Diederich LL, Castell JA (eds). Highlands Ranch, CO, Sandhill Scientific, 2000, pp. 1-12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dent J, Chir MB: Anewtechnique for continuous sphincter pressure measurement. Gastroenterology 71:263-267, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahrilas PJ, Clouse RE, Hogan WJ: American Gastroenterological Assoication technical review on the clinical use of esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology 107:1865-1884, 1994Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pursnani KG, Oeffner C, Gideon RM, Castell DO: Comparison of lower oesophageal sphincter pressure measurement using circumferential vs unidirectional transducers. Neurogastroenterol Mot 9:177-180, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kinney TP, Kozarek RA, Raltz S, Attia F: Contamination of singleuse biopsy forceps: A prospective in vitro analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 56:209-212, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klingler PJ, Hinder RA, Wetscher GJ, et al.: Accurate placement of the esophageal pH electrode for 24-hour pH monitoring using a combined pH/manometry probe. Am J Gastroenterol 95:906-909, 2000PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Botoman V: Ultrathin crossroads: Is smaller better? Gastrointest Endosc 57:377-380, 2003PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Fang
    • 1
  • Kristen Hilden
    • 1
  • Ashok K. Tuteja
    • 1
  • Kathryn A. Peterson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of Utah Health Sciences CenterSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations