Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2017
Classification for esophagogastric junction (EGJ) complex based on physiology.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Akimoto S, Singhal S, Masuda T, Mittal S K
Аннотация
We propose a new classification for esophagogastric junction (EGJ) incorporating both physiologic and morphologic characteristics. Additionally, we contrast it with the Chicago v 3.0 EGJ classification. With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, prospectively maintained database was queried to identify patients who underwent high-resolution manometry (HRM) and pH-study between October 2011 and October 2015. Patients with prior foregut intervention, pH study on acid suppression, esophageal dysmotility, or lower esophageal sphincter-crural diaphragm separation of >5 cm were excluded. We classified patients into three groups-Type-A: Complete overlap of lower esophageal sphincter-crural diaphragm (single high-pressure zone); Type-B: Double high-pressure zone with pressure inversion point (PIP) at or above lower esophageal sphincter; Type-C: Double high-pressure zone with PIP below lower esophageal sphincter. A total of 214 included patients were divided into Type-A (n = 101), Type-B (n = 32), and Type-C (n = 81). Abdominal lower esophageal sphincter length (AL), lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP), and lower esophageal sphincter pressure integral (LESPI) were significantly lower in Type-C than both Type-A and Type-B [AL(cm): 0.2 vs. 2(P < 0.001) vs. 1.6(P <0.001); LESP(mmHg): 20.1 vs. 32.1(P < 0.001) vs. 29.2(P < 0.001); LESPI(mmHg.cm.s): 187 vs. 412(P < 0.001) vs. 343(P < 0.05)] while overall lower esophageal sphincter length(OL) and Integrated Relaxation Pressure (IRP) were significantly lower in Type-C than Type-A [OL(cm): 2.9 vs. 3.6(P < 0.001); IRP(mmHg): 8.2 vs. 9.6(P < 0.05)]. Type-C patients had significantly higher positive pH score (>14.7) than Type-A and Type-B [72% vs. 47% (P < 0.05) vs. 41% (P < 0.001)]. In Type-C morphology, there is both anatomical and physiological deterioration, weakest lower esophageal sphincter function (abdominal length, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and lower esophageal sphincter pressure integral) and is most likely to be associated with pathological reflux. This proposed classification incorporates both physiological and morphological derangements in a graded fashion.