J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2021; 27(3): 347-353  https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm20217
Variations in Clinical Practice of Esophageal High-resolution Manometry: A Nationwide Survey
Eun Jeong Gong,1 Soo In Choi,2 Bong Eun Lee,3 Yang Won Min,4 Yu Kyung Cho,5 Kee Wook Jung,6 Ji Hyun Kim,7 and Moo In Park8*; Dysphagia Study Group Under the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility
1Department of Internal Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Gangwon-do, Korea; 2Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 3Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea; 4Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 5Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea; 6Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; 7Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Good Gangan Hospital, Busan, Korea; and 8Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
Correspondence to: Moo In Park, MD, PhD
Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, 262 Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49267, Korea
Tel: +82-51-990-6719, Fax: +82-51-990-5055, E-mail: mipark@ns.kosinmed.or.kr
Received: September 22, 2020; Revised: December 1, 2020; Accepted: December 2, 2020; Published online: July 30, 2021
© The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. All rights reserved.

cc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background/Aims
Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) enables the comprehensive evaluation of the esophageal motor function. However, protocols are not uniform and clinical practices vary widely among institutions. This study aims to understand the current HRM practice in Korea.
Methods
The survey was sent via email through the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. The questions covered descriptive information, preparation, techniques, analysis, and reporting of esophageal HRM.
Results
The survey was completed in 32 (74.4%) out of 43 centers, including 24 tertiary and 8 secondary referral centers. Of the 32 centers, 25 (78.1%) performed HRM in a sitting position, while 7 centers (21.9%) reported performing HRM in a supine position. All the centers utilized single wet swallows as a standard, but the volume, frequency, and interval between swallows varied widely. Sixteen centers (50.0%) applied adjunctive tests, including multiple rapid swallows (n = 16) and rapid drink challenges (n = 9). Parameters assessed and documented in the report were similar. In addition to the assessment of the esophagogastric junction and esophageal body, 27 centers (84.8%) and 18 centers (56.3%) included measurements for the upper esophageal sphincter and the pharynx, respectively, in the HRM protocol.
Conclusions
We found a variation in the available HRM practice among centers, even though they broadly agreed in the data analysis. Efforts are needed to develop a standardized protocol for HRM measurement.
Keywords: Clinical practice pattern; Esophageal motility disorders; Manometry
Introduction

Esophageal manometry is indicated in patients with dysphagia and is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of achalasia.1 Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) enables the comprehensive evaluation of esophageal motor function.2,3 Although the Chicago classification for esophageal motor disorders is widely accepted as a standard, the detailed measurement protocols are not uniform and vary according to centers and physicians.4 In addition, the presumed normative values are different according to the measurement position, the measurement system, or the software used in the analysis.5-7 In a recent international survey, marked variations were observed across centers in the data acquisition, analysis, and reporting of esophageal HRM.8

We hypothesized that the current practice of esophageal HRM varied widely among different centers within the same country. This study aims to understand the current esophageal HRM practices in Korea, especially the measurement protocols.

Materials and Methods

We collected the data on the current esophageal HRM practice using a survey sent by email to 43 centers in Korea where HRM is performed. The centers without clinical experience of esophageal HRM were not eligible for participation. This study did not involve patient-specific clinical data and did not require ethical approval.

Following a literature review, we drafted the survey which was reviewed by the members of the Dysphagia Research Group Under the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. Our goal was to focus on the protocols used for esophageal HRM measurements. We edited and tailored the questions to cover topics such as tools and equipment, indications, preparation, measurement protocols, data analysis, and reporting. We included closed and open-ended questions in the survey instrument. Any questions deemed not effective were re-worded until the intended aim of the question was reached. Finally, the survey included 20 questions available in Korean and was estimated to take 10 minutes (Supplementary Material).

The survey was sent by email starting October 2019 through the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, and the responses were received until March 2020. We sent the survey to a representative doctor in each center and collected one response on behalf of each center. We sent monthly reminders to maximize response rate. The data were analyzed quantitatively using the number of observations and proportions.

Results

The survey was completed by 32 centers out of 43, which gave a response rate of 74.4%. Among the respondents, 24 centers (75.0%) were tertiary referral centers, and 8 (25.0%) were secondary referral centers.

Equipment and Preparation

More than half of the surveyed centers used the Given Imaging system (Given Imaging Ltd, Los Angeles, CA, USA) (n = 17 [53.1%]), followed by the Sandhill Scientific (Sandhill Scientific Inc, Ranch, CO, USA) (n = 12 [37.5%]) and the Medical Measurements Systems (MMS, Enschede, Netherlands) (water-perfused system, n = 3 [9.4%]). The indications for esophageal HRM included dysphagia, noncardiac chest pain, and reflux symptoms (Table 1). Out of the 32 centers, 17 (53.1%) recommended not to eat or drink at least 6 hours before the HRM study, whereas 14 centers (43.8%) recommended fasting at midnight. Most centers reviewed the medication history of the patients, especially for antispasmodics, calcium channel blockers, nitrates, and opioids. Among the surveyed centers, 27 (84.4%) recommended discontinuing medication 2 to 7 days before test, while 5 centers did not recommend any change. In terms of withholding medication before tests, antispasmodics were not allowed in 26 centers (81.3%), calcium channel blockers in 23 centers (71.9%), nitrates in 19 centers (59.4%), and opioids in 16 centers (50.0%). Twenty-five centers (78.1%) applied a local anesthetic to the nares using a lidocaine jelly or a spray before the insertion of the catheter.

Table 1 . Indications and Preparation of Esophageal High-resolution Manometry

Variablesn (%)
Indications
Dysphagia32 (100.0)
Reflux symptoms24 (75.0)
Refractory GERD27 (84.4)
Noncardiac chest pain28 (87.5)
Before anti-reflux surgery20 (62.5)
Fasting before HRM
6 hours17 (53.1)
8 hours1 (3.1)
Midnight NPO14 (43.8)
Discontinuation of medication before HRM27 (84.4)
Antispasmodics26 (81.3)
Calcium channel blockers23 (71.9)
Nitrates19 (59.4)
Opioids16 (50.0)

GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; HRM, high-resolution manometry; NPO, nil per os.



Measurement Protocol

More than three-quarters of the centers (n = 25 [78.1%]) reported performing esophageal HRM in the sitting position, while 7 centers (21.9%) performed the measurement in the supine position (Table 2). Two centers performed the measurement in both the supine and the semi-recumbent positions. The reference pressure was set at atmospheric pressure in 7 centers and gastric pressure in 13 centers.

Table 2 . Study Protocols for Esophageal High-resolution Manometry

Variablesn (%) or median (range)
Position
Supine7 (21.9)
Sitting25 (78.1)a
Semi-recumbent2 (9.4)a
Swallows
Volume (mL)5 (2-20)
Number (times)10 (10-15)
Interval between swallows (seconds)30 (10-40)
Utilization of provocation test16 (50.0)
All patients7 (21.9)
Selected patients9 (28.1)
Provocation test
Multiple rapid swallows16 (50.0)
Rapid drink challenges9 (28.1)
Viscous swallow4 (12.5)
Solid swallow1 (3.1)

aOne center performed the test in both supine and sitting position, and another center performed the test in both sitting and semi-recumbent position.



All the centers used single wet swallows as a standard. However, the volume of each swallow, the overall numbers of swallows, and the interval between swallows varied according to the centers (Fig. 1). Eighteen centers (56.3%) performed wet swallows 10 times using 5 mL of water or saline, with at least 30 seconds of intervals between the swallows. Additionally, 4 centers (12.5%) performed viscous swallows and 1 center utilized solid swallows. Sixteen centers (50.0%) employed provocation tests, including multiple rapid swallows (MRS, n = 16) and rapid drink challenges (RDC, n = 9). Out of the 16 centers utilizing provocation tests, 7 centers (21.9%) conducted them with all patients, whereas 9 centers (28.1%) used them as additional tests when needed.

Figure 1. Frequency of protocols used for single wet swallow during esophageal high-resolution manometry. (A) Volume of each swallow. (B) Total number of swallows required for analysis. (C) Interval between swallows.

Data Analysis

The parameters routinely documented in reporting are summarized in Figure 2. All centers reported the resting lower esophageal sphincter pressure and the integrated relaxation pressure (IRP). Twenty-four centers (75.0%) assessed the morphology of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) and 15 centers (46.9%) estimated the EGJ-contractile integral. Most centers assessed the distal contractile integral and the distal latency, and 22 centers (68.8%) included the contractile front velocity in the analysis. The characteristics of the upper esophageal sphincter were determined in 27 centers (84.8%). Additionally, 18 centers (56.3%) included pharyngeal measurements in their HRM protocol.

Figure 2. Measurement parameters utilized to determine the esophageal motor function. (A) Esophagogastric junction (EGJ). (B) Esophageal body. EGJ-CI, esophagogastric junction-contractile integral; IRP, integrated relaxation pressure; LES, lower esophageal sphincter.
Discussion

In this study, we investigated the pattern in the current practices of esophageal HRM using a nationwide survey. Although the HRM metrics used for data analysis and reporting were similar, the study protocols varied widely among centers. We found a great heterogeneity in terms of the study position, the frequency and volume of single wet swallows, and the utilization of provocation tests among the different Korean centers.

The current HRM criteria for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders are based on the analysis of ten 5 mL swallows performed in the supine position.4 Interestingly, in our survey, we found that only 21.9% of the centers performed the study in the supine position, whereas more than three-quarters of them used the sitting position. A previous international survey also found that 41.8% of the centers included seated swallows in the analysis and 17.6% performed upright-seated swallows only.8 The rationale for using the sitting position is based on the concept that an upright or a seated position is more physiologic than a supine position, which can generate a risk of aspiration during the study in patients with dysphagia. The current recommendation does not discourage the use of the upright or seated positions and the measurement positions are not likely to affect the diagnosis of the major motility disorders.9,10 On the other hand, recent systematic reviews consistently showed that the distal contractile integral is significantly lower in the upright position than in the supine position.10,11 Since at least some HRM metrics are position-dependent, it is necessary to establish and utilize posture-specific normative values in esophageal HRM.6,12-15 Otherwise, a change of position could be included in the standard supine protocol as an adjunctive or complementary tool to enhance the diagnostic performance of esophageal HRM.

In our survey, all centers utilized single wet swallow as a standard. However, we found that the detailed protocol to collect single swallows varied widely among centers. The differences included the volume of each swallow, the overall number of swallows, and the interval between swallows. About half of the centers performed wet swallows using 5 mL of water or saline, with an interval of 30 seconds or more. In contrast, 6.3% of the centers utilized less than 5 mL of water or saline for single swallows, and 25.0% of them preceded subsequent sequence within 30 seconds. In addition, 18.8% of the centers performed more than 10 wet swallows during the study. Similarly, an international survey found that 69.2% of the centers utilized 15 to 20 liquid swallows, which may reflect the physicians’ effort to obtain high-quality data.8 The current guideline recommends the use of ten 5 mL wet swallows with an interval of 20 to 30 seconds between swallows for the testing of esophageal motility and the interpretation of data.9 However, the optimal frequency or the minimum requirement of single swallows to obtain analyzable data remain uncertain and require further standardization. The results of this survey could be helpful to better understand the current clinical practice patterns and to establish a consensus for esophageal HRM.

Increasing the volume and the consistency of swallows may also provide additional information on alternative diagnoses and may reveal pathology undetectable with the current protocol. In a previous study, viscous and solid swallows revealed obstructive physiology in 14.7% of the patients whose IRP was normal or borderline with single wet swallows.14 In addition, standardized test meals can be used to detect EGJ obstruction.16 These tests are more likely to induce symptoms and thus increase the diagnostic yield of esophageal HRM. However, at the same time, several HRM parameters can be changed according to the bolus volume and consistency.17 Therefore, it is recommended to follow a standard protocol using an established volume of wet swallows and to use additional provocative bolus challenges including viscous and solid swallows. In our survey, 81.3% of the centers utilized 5 mL swallows, while the others performed single wet swallows with various amount of bolus. These variations in the measurement protocol should be further standardized to improve the quality of esophageal HRM.

Adjunctive tests, including MRS and RDC, provide clinically relevant information regarding the esophageal motor function.18-20 The clinical usefulness of MRS has been studied in patients with gastroesophageal reflux diseases or ineffective esophageal motility, as a tool to estimate their peristaltic reserve.21,22 On the other hand, RDC is useful to assess the EGJ function.23 Although there is a growing body of evidence, the measurement and analysis protocols, and the reproducibility of each provocation test have not been established yet.24,25 Based on the current survey, only half of the centers utilized adjunctive tests as part of their measurements. Moreover, only 43.8% of these centers included provocation tests in their routine measurement protocol, and others performed provocation tests as required. These results are different from a previous international survey which showed that 92.3% of the centers utilized provocation tests and that 76.9% of them used MRS or RDC.8 This may reflect a regional difference in the disease spectrum and the presence of indicative symptoms requiring esophageal HRM.26

The normative values for esophageal HRM are equipment- or software-specific. Therefore, specific normal values for systems or catheters are required to diagnose esophageal motility disorders correctly according to the Chicago classification.9 The normative values for esophageal HRM were established initially using catheters with 36 channels solid-state HRM system.18,27-29 More recently, normal values for water-perfused esophageal HRM have also been established and compared to those for solid-state HRM.30 Notably, the data obtained from healthy volunteers showed a moderate to good agreement between solid-state and water-perfused HRM for most parameters but showed a fair agreement for IRP.30 Other studies using a different water-perfused system also showed a lower value in the upper limits of normal for IRP than for solid-state system.31,32 In terms of data analysis, a previous international survey showed that 71.4% of the centers utilized manufacturer-specific normal values, 22.0% used locally validated normal values, and 13.2% did not use the normal values specific to their systems.8 In our survey, the majority of the centers used solid-state systems and only 9.4% used water-perfused systems. Given that the normative values for the esophageal HRM parameters in the Korean population have not yet been investigated, further research is needed to establish the normative values for HRM using a standardized protocol. A comparative analysis of the normative values according to each device is also required.

There are several limitations to this study. Firstly, we did not consider the quality and confidence of esophageal HRM in each center. In addition, we did not investigate the volume of centers and patient throughput. Secondly, the clinical practice varies between physicians even within the same center. In the current study, we obtained only one response from each center. Thus, the reporting may not fully represent the practice and views of all the physicians working in the same center. Third, despite a high response rate, the amount of non-response may suggest a possible response bias. However, the response bias is a systematic error inherent to this type of research and we have made every attempt to minimize it by sending out reminders on a monthly-basis. Despite these limitations, this nationwide survey provides the first evidence on the clinical practice of esophageal HRM in Korea and promotes better understanding of the current practice.

In conclusion, we observed variations in the current practice of esophageal HRM among centers, even though they all seemed to broadly agree on the data analysis and reporting. The lack of uniformity was found mainly in the detailed protocol of single wet swallows and the utilization of provocation tests, which stresses the need for standardized protocols for esophageal HRM. These results can be considered as a basis for the future development of a consensus on the standard clinical practice of esophageal HRM.

Supplementary Materials

Note: To access the supplementary material mentioned in this article, visit the online version of Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility at http://www.jnmjournal.org/, and at https://doi.org/10.5056/jnm20217.

jnm-27-3-347-supple.pdf
Acknowledgements

We appreciate all the respondents who made this study possible.

Financial support

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author contributions

Yang Won Min, Yu Kyung Cho, Kee Wook Jung, Ji Hyun Kim, and Moo In Park designed the study; Eun Jeong Gong, Soo In Choi, Bong Eun Lee, Yang Won Min, Yu Kyung Cho, Kee Wook Jung, Ji Hyun Kim, and Moo In Park developed the survey; and Eun Jeong Gong and Moo In Park collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. All the authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

References
  1. Savarino E, Marabotto E, Bodini G, et al. Advancements in the use of manometry and impedance testing for esophageal functional disorders. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;13:425-435.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Singendonk MJ, Lin Z, Scheerens C, et al. High-resolution impedance manometry parameters in the evaluation of esophageal function of non-obstructive dysphagia patients. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2019;31:e13505.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. Expert consensus document: advances in the management of oesophageal motility disorders in the era of high-resolution manometry: a focus on achalasia syndromes. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;14:677-688.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Kahrilas PJ, Bredenoord AJ, Fox M, et al. The Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:160-174.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Herregods TV, Roman S, Kahrilas PJ, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ. Normative values in esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:175-187.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. do Carmo GC, Jafari J, Sifrim D, de Oliveira RB. Normal esophageal pressure topography metrics for data derived from the sandhill-unisensor high-resolution manometry assembly in supine and sitting positions. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2015;27:285-292.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Bogte A, Bredenoord AJ, Oors J, Siersema PD, Smout AJ. Normal values for esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;25:762-e579.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Sweis R, Heinrich H, Fox M. Variation in esophageal physiology testing in clinical practice: results from an international survey. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;30:e13215.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Trudgill NJ, Sifrim D, Sweis R, et al. British society of gastroenterology guidelines for oesophageal manometry and oesophageal reflux monitoring. Gut 2019;68:1731-1750.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Riva CG, Siboni S, Ferrari D, et al. Effect of body position on high-resolution esophageal manometry variables and final manometric diagnosis. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020;26:335-343.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Alcala Gonzalez LG, Oude Nijhuis RAB, Smout AJPM, Bredenoord AJ. Normative reference values for esophageal high-resolution manometry in healthy adults: a systematic review. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2021;33:e13954.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Roman S, Damon H, Pellissier PE, Mion F. Does body position modify the results of oesophageal high resolution manometry? Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010;22:271-275.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Sweis R, Anggiansah A, Wong T, Kaufman E, Obrecht S, Fox M. Normative values and inter-observer agreement for liquid and solid bolus swallows in upright and supine positions as assessed by esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011;23:509-e198.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Xiao Y, Nicodème F, Kahrilas PJ, Roman S, Lin Z, Pandolfino JE. Optimizing the swallow protocol of clinical high-resolution esophageal manometry studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012;24:e489-e496.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Srinivas M, Jain M, Bawane P, Jayanthi V. Normative values for esophageal motility assessed in the physiological seated position for 16-channel water perfused high-resolution esophageal manometry system and postural variations in healthy volunteers. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020;26:61-66.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. 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;2:654-661.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Hasan Y, Go J, Hashmi SM, Valestin J, Schey R. Influence of everyday bolus consistencies in different body positions on high-resolution esophageal pressure topography (HREPT) parameters. Dis Esophagus 2015;28:246-252.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE, Rice J, Clarke JO, Kwiatek M, Kahrilas PJ. 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-G885.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Sweis R, Anggiansah A, Wong T, Brady G, Fox M. 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;26:215-228.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Carlson DA, Roman S. Esophageal provocation tests: are they useful to improve diagnostic yield of high resolution manometry? Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;30:e13321.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Shaker A, Stoikes N, Drapekin J, Kushnir V, Brunt LM, Gyawali CP. Multiple rapid swallow responses during esophageal high-resolution manometry reflect esophageal body peristaltic reserve. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1706-1712.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. Martinucci I, Savarino EV, Pandolfino JE, et al. Vigor of peristalsis during multiple rapid swallows is inversely correlated with acid exposure time in patients with NERD. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016;28:243-250.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. 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;24:410-414.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  24. 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.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Cho YK. Which provocation test will be added to routine high-resolution manometry protocol in unexplained dysphagia? J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2018;24:329-330.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. GBD 2017 Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;5:561-581.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  27. Pandolfino JE, Ghosh SK, Zhang Q, Jarosz A, Shah N, Kahrilas PJ. 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.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE, Zhang Q, Jarosz A, Shah N, Kahrilas PJ. Quantifying esophageal peristalsis with high-resolution manometry: a study of 75 asymptomatic volunteers. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2006;290:G988-G997.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Weijenborg PW, Kessing BF, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ. Normal values for solid-state esophageal high-resolution manometry in a European population; an overview of all current metrics. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:654-659.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Kessing BF, Weijenborg PW, Smout AJ, Hillenius S, Bredenoord AJ. Water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry: normal values and validation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2014;306:G491-G495.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  31. Wang K, Duan LP, Ge Y, Xia ZW, Xu ZJ. A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery. BMC Gastroenterol 2012;12:157.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  32. Ortiz V, Poppele G, Alonso N, Castellano C, Garrigues V. Evaluation of esophagogastric junction relaxation by 4-second integrated relaxation pressure in achalasia using high resolution manometry with water-perfused catheters. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:1551-1556.
    Pubmed CrossRef


This Article

e-submission

Archives

Aims and Scope