RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current treatment options for achalasia of the esophagus predominantly consist of endoscopic myotomy or laparoscopic myotomy combined with a partial fundoplication. The intraoperative use of conventional manometry has previously been proposed with various results. The aim of the present study was to introduce the use of high-resolution manometry (HRM) during surgical treatment for achalasia and to assess the long-term outcome of this technique. METHODS: We enrolled achalasia patients within the time period November 2013 to July 2016 who underwent HRM and evaluation of Eckardt scores (ES) before and after tailored laparoscopic myotomy and fundoplication with intraoperative recording using HRM. RESULTS: Twenty patients were classified as having achalasia type I (20%), type II (55%), or type III (25%). During surgery, 9 myotomies were extended and 13 fundoplications were modified according to HRM findings. Mean resting (16.1 vs. 41.9 mmHg) and residual (9 vs. 28.7 mmHg) pressures of the lower esophageal sphincter and ES (0.7 vs. 6.9) were significantly eliminated postoperatively over a mean follow-up time of 17.7 months. CONCLUSIONS: The use of intraoperative HRM gives us the advantage of simultaneous real-time estimation of intraluminal pressures of the esophagus and the ability to identify the exact points that produce pressure during laparoscopy. Consequently, it may be the key to the tailoring of the Heller-Dor technique and improving the outcomes for achalasia patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of high-resolution manometry (HRM) in achalasia patients has revealed abnormal findings concerning upper esophageal sphincter (UES) function. The introduction of the UES contractile integral (UES-CI), as with the distal contractile integral (DCI), may complement the interpretation of the manometric study of achalasia subtypes, defined by the Chicago Classification v3.0. METHODS: Patients were classified into achalasia subtypes based on HRM. UES length (cm), UES resting pressure (mmHg), and UES residual pressure (mmHg) were recorded. UES-CI (mmHg·sec·cm) was calculated in a manner similar to that used for the DCI measurement at rest (landmark CI), corrected for respiration, and its relation to achalasia subtypes was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-four achalasia patients with mean age 55.29 years were included. Of these, 16.6% (n=4) were diagnosed with achalasia type I, 58.3% (n=14) with type II, and 25% (n=6) with type III. The landmark UES-CI, mean UES-CI, UES-CI corrected for respiration, and UES resting pressure were found to be significantly higher among patients with achalasia type II compared to the other types (1768.9 vs. 677.1, P=0.03; 1827.1 vs. 3555.1, P=0.036; 174.2 vs. 72.8, P=0.027; and 108.1 vs. 55.8, P=0.009, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We introduce the CI index as a tool for the manometric evaluation of the UES in achalasia. UES resting pressure, landmark UES-CI and mean UES-CI were significantly higher in achalasia patients with panesophageal pressurization compared to types I and III. This finding may reflect a protective reaction against the risk of aspiration in this group, but further studying and clinical correlation is required.
