Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Normal Values in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Performed Using 36-Channel Water-Perfused Catheter or Solid-State Catheter
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background/Aims: Manometric measurements are crucial for diagnosing esophageal motility disorders. High-resolution manometry (HRM) studies mainly use 2 catheter systems: solid state (SS) and water perfused (WP), each with distinct advantages. This study aimed to establish normal values for esophageal manometry using both 36-channel WP and SS catheters in healthy volunteers.
Materials and Methods: This study, conducted between January 2017 and September 2018, included 44 healthy volunteers with no upper gastrointestinal symptoms or history of gastrointestinal surgery (except inguinal hernia repair or appendectomy). Participants gave written informed consent, abstained from medications and alcohol, and underwent normal endoscopy. They then had 2 consecutive esophageal manometry sessions, 1 day apart, using a 36-channel SS-HRM catheter and a 36-channel WP-HRM catheter. All tracings were analyzed using the Chicago classification version 3.0.
Results: Four participants were excluded due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Of the remaining 40 (age 37.4 ± 7.6, 62.5% male), all underwent WP-HRM, and 34 underwent SS-HRM. In SS-HRM, 74 of 386 swallows were <450 mm Hg·s·cm; in WP-HRM, 151 of 441 swallows were <<450 mm Hg·s·cm. Thus, 4 of 34 volunteers (11.8%) in SS-HRM and 12 of 40 (30%) in WP-HRM had ≥50% swallows with DCI <450 mm Hg·s·cm. Median IRP4 was 17 (7-27) mm Hg in SS-HRM vs. 6 (0-18) mm Hg in WP-HRM. The 5th-95th percentile DCI was 183-2962 mm Hg·s·cm in SS-HRM vs. 65.5-1711.5 mm Hg·s·cm in WP-HRM.
Conclusion: This study compares normal values and differences in WP-HRM and SS-HRM among healthy Turkish volunteers, demonstrating differing diagnostic criteria and providing valuable reference data for future studies.
Cite this article as: Bor S, Sadeghı A, Kıpcak S, Senkaya A. Normal values in esophageal high-resolution manometry performed using 36-channel water-perfused catheter or solid-state catheter. Turk J Gastroenterol. Published online: March 25, 2025. doi 10.5152/tjg.2025.24582.
Article Details
References
1. Bredenoord AJ, Smout AJPM. High-resolution manometry. Dig Liver Dis. 2008;40(3):174-181. [CrossRef]
2. Lazarescu A. New diagnostic techniques for esophageal disorders. Can J Gastroenterol. 2008;22(11):903-908. [CrossRef]
3. Pandolfino JE, Roman S. High-resolution manometry: an atlas of esophageal motility disorders and findings of GERD using esophageal pressure topography. Thorac Surg Clin. 2011;21(4):465-475. [CrossRef]
4. Bowers SP. Esophageal motility disorders. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95(3):467-482. [CrossRef]
5. Bredenoord AJ, Hebbard GS. Technical aspects of clinical high-resolution manometry studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2012;24(suppl 1):5-10. [CrossRef]
6. Kahrilas PJ, Ghosh SK, Pandolfino JE. Esophageal motility disorders in terms of pressure topography: the Chicago Classification. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;42(5):627-635. [CrossRef]
7. Pandolfino JE, Ghosh SK, Rice J, Clarke JO, Kwiatek MA, Kahrilas PJ. Classifying esophageal motility by pressure topography characteristics: a study of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(1):27-37. [CrossRef]
8. Nikaki K, Ooi JLS, Sifrim D. Chicago classification of esophageal motility disorders: applications and limits in adults and pediatric patients with esophageal symptoms. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18(11):59. [CrossRef]
9. Fox MR, Sweis R, Yadlapati R, et al. Chicago classification version 4.0(©) technical review: update on standard high-resolution manometry protocol for the assessment of esophageal motility. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;33(4):e14120. [CrossRef]
10. 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(1):61-66. [CrossRef]
11. Weijenborg PW, Kessing BF, Smout AJPM, 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(5):654-659. [CrossRef]
12. Rengarajan A, Drapekin J, Patel A, Gyawali CP. Comparison of two high-resolution manometry software systems in evaluating esophageal motor function. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28(12):1836-1843. [CrossRef]
13. Takeshita E, Sakata Y, Hara M, et al. Higher frequency of reflux symptoms and acid-related dyspepsia in women than men regardless of endoscopic esophagitis: analysis of 3,505 Japanese subjects undergoing medical health checkups. Digestion. 2016;93(4):266-271. [CrossRef]
14. van Hoeij FB, Smout AJ, Bredenoord AJ. Predictive value of routine esophageal high-resolution manometry for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(7):963-970. [CrossRef]
15. Burgos-Santamaría D, Marinero A, Chavarría-Herbozo CM, Pérez-Fernández T, López-Salazar TR, Santander C. Normal values for water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2015;107(6):354-358.
16. do Carmo GC, Jafari J, Sifrim D, de Oliveira RB. Normal esophageal pressure topography metrics for data derived from the sandhillUnisensor high-resolution manometry assembly in supine and sitting positions. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2015;27(2):285-292. [CrossRef]
17. Migliore M, Deodato G. Clinical features and oesophageal motility in patients with tight fundoplication. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;16(3):266-272. [CrossRef]
18. 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(6):509-e198. [CrossRef]
19. Bogte A, Bredenoord AJ, Oors J, Siersema PD, Smout AJPM. Normal values for esophageal high-resolution manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(9):762-e579. [CrossRef]
20. Niebisch S, Wilshire CL, Peters JH. Systematic analysis of esophageal pressure topography in high-resolution manometry of 68 normal volunteers. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26(7):651-660. [CrossRef]
21. Shi Y, Xiao Y, Peng S, Lin J, Xiong L, Chen M. Normative data of high-resolution impedance manometry in the Chinese population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28(10):1611-1615. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang X, Xiang X, Tu L, Xie X, Hou X. Esophageal motility in the supine and upright positions for liquid and solid swallows through high-resolution manometry. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;19(4):467-472. [CrossRef]
23. Kessing BF, Weijenborg PW, Smout AJPM, Hillenius S, Bredenoord AJ. Water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry: normal values and validation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2014;306(6):G491-G495. [CrossRef]
24. Xiang XL, Wang A, Tu L, et al. The motility of esophageal sphincters during liquid and solid bolus swallows: a multicenter normative value study of high-resolution manometry in China. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29(1). [CrossRef]
25. Hiranyatheb P, Chakkaphak S, Chirnaksorn S, Lekhaka P, Petsrikun K, Somboonpun K. Normal values of high-resolution manometry in supine and upright positions in a Thai population. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63(1):173-183. [CrossRef]
26. Tseng PH, Wong RKM, Wu JF, et al. Normative values and factors affecting water-perfused esophageal high-resolution impedance manometry for a Chinese population. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(6):e13265. [CrossRef]
27. Srinivas M, Jain M, Bawane P, Jayanthi V. Chicago Classification normative metrics in a healthy Indian cohort for a 16-channel water-perfused high-resolution esophageal manometry system. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(10):e13386. [CrossRef]