High-resolution manometry, a novel technology, has revolutionized the ease of performing, interpreting, and applying gastrointestinal motility tests in clinical practice. Moreover, the recent introduction of Chicago classification has paved a new way by which motility disorders like achalasia are diagnosed and classified, and has introduced a new clinical dimension to select patients with different sub-types of achalasia to different therapeutic modalities. Moreover, high-resolution manometry also helped us to understand which sub-type of achalasia respond best to the first-line treatment like endoscopic pneumatic dilation. Introduction of newer parameters such as integrated relaxation pressures, distal contractile integral, contractile deceleration point, and distal latency, potentially helped in diagnosis of various clinical entities more objectively.
Motility Achalasia Distal esophageal spasm Jackhammer esophagus Chicago classification Esophageal manometry Anorectal manometry Cricopharyngeal bar Dyssynergic defecation Fragmented peristalsis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Carlson DA, Pandolfino JE. High-resolution manometry and esophageal pressure topography: filling the gaps of convention manometry. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42(1):1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Kahrilas PJ, Pandolfino JE, Schwizer W, Smout AJ, International High Resolution Manometry Working Group. Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24 Suppl 1:57–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Kahrilas P, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, Gyawali CP, Roman S, Smout AJ, Pandolfino JE, International High Resolution Manometry Working Group. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(2):160–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kahrilas PJ, Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE. Esophageal motility disorders in terms of pressure topography: the Chicago classification. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42(5):627–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Pandolfino JE, Fox MR, Bredenoord AJ, Kahrilas PJ. High-resolution manometry in clinical practice: utilizing pressure topography to classify oesophageal motility abnormalities. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009;21(8):796–806.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Sainani R. Manometry in gastrointestinal disorders. In: Mehta R, editor. Clinical gastroenterology. 3rd ed. Hyderabad: Paras Publishers; 2014.Google Scholar
Schuster M, Crowell M, Koch K. Schuster atlas of gastrointestinal motility. 2nd ed. Hamilton: B.C. Decker; 2002.Google Scholar
Rao SS, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, Enck P, Tougas G, Wald A. Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2002;14(5):553–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Barnett JL, Hasler WL, Camilleri M. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on anorectal testing techniques. American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(3):732–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE. AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(3):735–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar