American journal of surgery · 2020
Is barium esophagram enough? Comparison of esophageal motility found on barium esophagram to high resolution manometry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zambito Giuseppe, Roether Robert, Kern Brittany, Conway Ryan, Scheeres David, Banks-Venegoni Amy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to determine if barium esophagram (BE) alone is sufficient to diagnose esophageal dysmotility when compared to the gold standard, high-resolution manometry (HRM).
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients that underwent laparoscopic fundoplication by two surgeons at a single institution from 10/1/2015-6/29/2019. Patients with large paraesophageal hernias and patients without both BE and HRM were excluded.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. BE was found to be concordant with HRM for esophageal motility in only 21 patients (46%). Setting HRM as the gold standard, BE had a sensitivity of 14% (95% CI: 5%-35%), specificity of 72% (95% CI: 52%-86%), PPV of 30% (95% CI: 11%-60%), and NPV of 50% (95% CI: 35%-66%). The accuracy was 46%, while a McNemar test showed p = 0.028.
CONCLUSION: Traditional BE should not be used in place of HRM for assessing pre-operative motility in patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients that underwent laparoscopic fundoplication by two surgeons at a single institution from 10/1/2015-6/29/2019. Patients with large paraesophageal hernias and patients without both BE and HRM were excluded.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. BE was found to be concordant with HRM for esophageal motility in only 21 patients (46%). Setting HRM as the gold standard, BE had a sensitivity of 14% (95% CI: 5%-35%), specificity of 72% (95% CI: 52%-86%), PPV of 30% (95% CI: 11%-60%), and NPV of 50% (95% CI: 35%-66%). The accuracy was 46%, while a McNemar test showed p = 0.028.
CONCLUSION: Traditional BE should not be used in place of HRM for assessing pre-operative motility in patients undergoing anti-reflux surgery.