Poor Esophageal Motility: A Tailored Approach?



Fig. 20.1
Example of ineffective esophageal motility, Swallow (Sw) 1–10: Hypotensive contraction (Swallow 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9); Failed peristalsis (Swallow 2, 3, 5, 10); Weak peristalsis with small (2–5 cm) and large (>5 cm) breaks in the isobaric contour of 20 mmHg (Swallow 7–9)



A272838_1_En_20_Fig2_HTML.gif


Fig. 20.2
Incomplete bolus transit due to a large break in the 20 mmHg isobaric contour in high-resolution impedance manometry. The pink shaded area indicates bolus presence in the esophageal pressure topography. The corresponding line tracing shows inadequate recovery (<50 %), which indicates incomplete clearance (dashed line)


Although not part of the current classification of ineffective or weak esophageal motility, the distal contractile integral (DCI) provides further assessment of global distal esophageal circular muscle strength. The DCI is calculated as the product of mean amplitude of the contraction (excluding pressure below 20 mmHg) from the transition of the striated to smooth esophageal muscles (proximal pressure trough) to the proximal border of the LES by duration and by length and gives an overall value of the circular muscle strength of the distal esophagus. To date, the DCI has largely been used to define hypercontractility, focusing on the upper limits of normal, differentiating hypercontractility from normal contractions, rather than the lower limits of esophageal motility. Figure 20.3 shows a normal esophageal body contraction in esophageal pressure topography and its corresponding line tracing in a patient with distal contraction amplitude and DCI within normal limits. A limitation of the automated DCI calculation provided by the analysis software is that repetitive pressure signals separated from the esophageal contractile complex such as vascular artifacts are included in this calculation. This may lead to artifactual overestimation of the circular contraction strength in patients with a hypocontractile esophagus [10]. The lower limit of the DCI, expressed by the 5th percentile of asymptomatic controls is 500 mmHg • cm • s.

A272838_1_En_20_Fig3_HTML.gif


Fig. 20.3
Normal contraction amplitude and distal contractile integral (DCI): Color plot (A) and corresponding line tracing (B). Black and red dots indicate begin and end of contraction. Peak of contraction (contraction amplitude) displayed by white square in A and as vertical red line in B. DCI is calculated by average pressure (in an isobaric contour of 20 mmHg) × time × length (doted white box). Contraction amplitude: 120 mmHg; DCI 1,800 mmHg • s • cm



The Tailored Approach in the Current Literature


The benefits of tailoring the degree of fundoplication, either by performing an alternative wrap or by altering the Nissen wrap in some way, based upon the patients esophageal motility remain unknown mostly due to insufficient and poor quality data to date. Nearly all published studies (Tables 20.1 and 20.2) suffer from one or more of the following problems.


Table 20.1
Dysphagia after Nissen fundoplication in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) vs. normal motility (N); CA: Contraction Amplitude





















































 
Definition of poor motility

IEM

N

OP

Use of Bougie

Hiatal closure

f/u

Postoperative dysphagia

Biertho [20]

Mean CA < 30 mmHg

38

533

Nissen

No

n/r

Up to 5 years

No difference in dysphagia score

Ravi [21]

CA < 30 mmHg or failed in ≥30 %

38

60

Nissen

No

Yes

Six months

Moderate/severe: 13 % (IEM) vs. 8 % (N)

Munitiz [22]

CA < 30 mmHg in ≥50 %

41

52

Open Nissen

48–50 Fr

Yes

Median 5–6.5 years

New onset: 7.3 % (IEM) vs. 3.9 % (N)



Table 20.2
Postoperative dysphagia after total (Nissen) and partial (Toupet) fundoplication in a cohort of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and normal motility (N); CA: Contraction Amplitude






































































































 
Definition of poor motility

IEM

N

OP

Use of Bougie

Hiatal closure

f/u

Postoperative dysphagia

Strate [19]

CA < 40 mmHg and/or failed peristalsis >40 %

50

50

Nissen

36 Fr

Yes

2 years

IEM: 26 % (Nissen) vs. 10 % (Toupet)

N: 12 % (Nissen) vs. 6 % (Toupet)

50

50

Toupet

Booth [15]

CA < 30 mmHg and/or non-propagating ≥30 %

26

38

Nissen

56 Fr

Yes

1 year

No difference in prevalence of new onset of worsened dysphagia

26

37

Toupet

Shaw [18]

CA < 40 mmHg and/or failed peristalsis >40 %

14

36

Nissen

52 Fr

Yes

~5 years

IEM: 14 % (Nissen) vs. 0 % (Toupet)

11

39

Toupet

Patti [17]

mean CA ≤ 40 mmHg

55

67

Nissen

56 Fr

Yes

Mean 70 months

IEM: 9 % (Nissen) vs. 8 % (Toupet)

141


Toupet

Chrysos [16]

CA <35 mmHg

14


Nissen

No

Yes

1 year

IEM: 14 % (Nissen) vs. 16 % (Toupet)

19


Toupet

Wetscher [13]

CA <30 mmHg or simultaneous or interrupted >10 %


17

Nissen

58–60 Fr

Yes

Median 15 months

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 30, 2017 | Posted by in GASTROENTEROLOGY | Comments Off on Poor Esophageal Motility: A Tailored Approach?

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access