Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Air-Coupled Balloon Esophageal and Anorectal Manometry Catheters with Solid-State Esophageal Manometry and Water-Perfused Anorectal Manometry Catheters

  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Clinical gastrointestinal manometry studies are currently performed with multilumen water-perfused polyvinyl or strain gauge sensor solid-state catheters. A disposable catheter incorporating air-filled balloons has been developed with performance characteristics suitable for esophageal and anorectal manometry studies. Our aim was to compare esophageal and anorectal pressure measurements using this newly developed catheter with measurements obtained using standard solid-state or water-perfused catheters. Measurements of resting LES pressure, esophageal contraction amplitudes, and anorectal rest and squeeze pressures were obtained in 10 healthy volunteers using a solid-state esophageal catheter, a water-perfused anorectal catheter, and air-filled balloon esophageal and anorectal catheters. Correlation coefficient analysis demonstrated that LES pressures, esophageal contraction amplitudes, and anorectal resting and squeeze pressures were not significantly among between the different catheters. We conclude that recently developed air-filled balloon esophageal and anorectal manometry catheters provide very similar measurements of LES, esophageal body, and anorectal sphincter pressures compared to presently used manometry catheters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Hawkins D: Risky recycling. US NewsWord Report 20:62-67, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yang R, Ng S, Nichol M, Laine L: A cost and performance evaluation of disposable and resuable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 51:266-270, 2000

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rizzo J, Bernstein D, Gress F: A performance, safety and cost comparison of reusable and disposable biopsy forceps: A prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 51:257-261, 2000

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowdle M: Evaluating a newintrauterine pressure catheter. J Reprod Med 42:505-513, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dowdle M: Comparison of two intrauterine pressure catheters during labor. J Reprod Med 48:501-505, 2003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pollak JT, Davila GW: A comparsion between air-charged versus microtransducer catheter urodynamic evaluation of urethral function. Abstract, AUGS, Oral poster 48, 2002

  7. Rao SSC, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, Enck P, Tougas G, Wald A: Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Mot 14:553-559, 2002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Diederich LL: Esophageal manometry procedure. In, Castell DO, Diederich LL, Castell JA (eds). Highlands Ranch, CO, Sandhill Scientific, 2000, pp. 41-56

    Google Scholar 

  9. Castell DO: Historical perspectives and current use of esophageal manometry. In Esophageal Motility and pH Testing: Techniques and Interpretation. Castell DO, Diederich LL, Castell JA (eds). Highlands Ranch, CO, Sandhill Scientific, 2000, pp. 1-12

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dent J, Chir MB: Anewtechnique for continuous sphincter pressure measurement. Gastroenterology 71:263-267, 1976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahrilas PJ, Clouse RE, Hogan WJ: American Gastroenterological Assoication technical review on the clinical use of esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology 107:1865-1884, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pursnani KG, Oeffner C, Gideon RM, Castell DO: Comparison of lower oesophageal sphincter pressure measurement using circumferential vs unidirectional transducers. Neurogastroenterol Mot 9:177-180, 1997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kinney TP, Kozarek RA, Raltz S, Attia F: Contamination of singleuse biopsy forceps: A prospective in vitro analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 56:209-212, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klingler PJ, Hinder RA, Wetscher GJ, et al.: Accurate placement of the esophageal pH electrode for 24-hour pH monitoring using a combined pH/manometry probe. Am J Gastroenterol 95:906-909, 2000

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Botoman V: Ultrathin crossroads: Is smaller better? Gastrointest Endosc 57:377-380, 2003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84132, USA

    John C. Fang, Kristen Hilden, Ashok K. Tuteja & Kathryn A. Peterson

Authors
  1. John C. Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen Hilden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashok K. Tuteja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn A. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fang, J.C., Hilden, K., Tuteja, A.K. et al. Comparison of Air-Coupled Balloon Esophageal and Anorectal Manometry Catheters with Solid-State Esophageal Manometry and Water-Perfused Anorectal Manometry Catheters. Dig Dis Sci 49, 1657–1663 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:DDAS.0000043382.59539.d3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:DDAS.0000043382.59539.d3

Search

Navigation