Foreign body impaction in the esophagus: are there underlying motor disorders?

RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the impacted subjects presented marked reduction in amplitude and duration of esophageal contraction in the proximal esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: These motor disorders could be responsible for the foreign body impaction in the esophagus. However, we believe this patient group should be further studied by 24-hour esophageal manometry to reach a more accurate diagnosis by studying each patient's entire circadian cycle.

Vagal dysfunction in irritable bowel syndrome assessed by rectal distension and baroreceptor sensitivity.

Autonomic nervous system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This study characterized the autonomic response to rectal distension in IBS using baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS), a measure of autonomic function. Rectal bag pressure, discomfort, pain, ECG, blood pressure and BRS were continuously measured before, during and after rectal distension in 98 healthy volunteers (34 +/- 12 years old, 52 females) and 39 IBS patients (39 +/- 11 years old, 35 females). In comparison with the healthy volunteers, IBS patients experienced significantly more discomfort (69 +/- 2.2% vs 56 +/- 3.6%; P < 0.05), but not pain (9 +/- 1.4% vs 6 +/- 2.4%; ns) with rectal distension despite similar distension pressures (51 +/- 1.4 vs 54 +/- 2.4 mmHg; ns) and volumes (394 +/- 10.9 vs 398 +/- 21.5 mL; ns). With rectal distension, heart rate increased in both healthy volunteers (66 +/- 1 to 71 +/- 1 bpm; P < 0.05) and IBS patients (66 +/- 2 to 74 +/- 3 bpm; P < 0.05). Systolic blood pressure also increased in both healthy volunteers (121 +/- 2 to 143 +/- 2 mmHg; P < 0.05) and patients (126 +/- 3 to 153 +/- 4 mmHg (P < 0.05) as did diastolic blood pressure, 66 +/- 2 to 80 +/- 2 mmHg (P < 0.05), compared with 68 +/- 3 to 84 +/- 3 mmHg (P < 0.05) in IBS patients. The systolic blood pressure increase observed in IBS patients was greater than that seen in healthy volunteers and remained elevated in the post distension period (139 +/- 3 mmHg vs 129 +/- 2 mmHg; P < 0.05). IBS patients had lower BRS (7.85 +/- 0.4 ms mmHg(-1)) compared with healthy volunteers (9.4 +/- 0.3; P < 0.05) at rest and throughout rectal distension. Greater systolic blood pressure response to rectal distension and associated diminished BRS suggests a compromise of the autonomic nervous system in IBS patients.

Pneumatic dilatation in achalasia of the esophagus: a report from Argentina.

We review the treatment of esophageal achalasia by means of pneumatic dilatation (PD), analyzing its results and comparing them with those of the literature. We conclude that our personal experience is similar to that of the literature: PD and surgery produce similar results (67-95%), morbidity (2-9.5%), and mortality (0.7-1%); and PD is cheaper than surgery. According to these conclusions, we believe that the decision of the appropriate treatment should be based on a combination of the choice of the properly informed patient and the operator's experience. However, we also conclude that surgery is mandatory in selected cases, such as achalasia associated with hiatus hernia, esophageal diverticula and neoplasia, history of previous PD failure (since in our experience the results after a second PD are very poor), postoperative relapse, and patients with grade IV mega-esophagus according to Resano-Malenchini's classification.

Heterotopic gastric mucosa in the upper esophagus: report of a case with a fistula.

We report the case of a 36-year-old man with a patch of heterotopic gastric mucosa in the upper esophagus complicated by an esophageal fistula.

[Barrett s epithelium: clinical review]. / Epitelio de Barrett: revisión clínica.

In this paper we review the literature about regarding etiology, natural history, methods of study and treatment of Barrett's esophagus. Likewise we review our personal experience as well as the one at national level.

Epitelio de Barrett: revisión clínica / Barrett's epithelium: clinical review

In this paper we review the literature about regarding etiology, natural history, methods of study and treatment of Barrett's esophagus. Likewise we review our personal experience as well as the one at national leve.

Epitelio de Barrett: revisión clínica / Barretts epithelium: clinical review

In this paper we review the literature about regarding etiology, natural history, methods of study and treatment of Barretts esophagus. Likewise we review our personal experience as well as the one at national leve. (Au)

Epitelio de Barrett: revisión clínica. / [Barrett s epithelium: clinical review]

In this paper we review the literature about regarding etiology, natural history, methods of study and treatment of Barretts esophagus. Likewise we review our personal experience as well as the one at national level.

Foreign body impaction in the esophagus: are there underlying motor disorders?

UNLABELLED: We observed in our practice several cases of impaction with meat boluses without bony edges, in patients with patent esophageal lumen. The aim of this study was to search for eventual underlying motor disorders which could be responsible for this impaction. We included 19 patients who attended the endoscopy service for meat bolus impaction without organic esophageal stenosis. This group was compared with 18 control volunteers. Both groups underwent UGI series, UGI endoscopy and low-compliance perfusion standard esophageal manometry. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the impacted subjects presented marked reduction in amplitude and duration of esophageal contraction in the proximal esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: These motor disorders could be responsible for the foreign body impaction in the esophagus. However, we believe this patient group should be further studied by 24-hour esophageal manometry to reach a more accurate diagnosis by studying each patient's entire circadian cycle.

Esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilatation for achalasia: why?

A retropective study was perfomed to asses risk factors in patients with esophageal echalasia undergoing pneumatic dilatation. Of 140 patients who underwent 159 dilatations, 7 sustained esophageal perforation (4.4 percent). They were matched with a group of 52 non perforated, dilated achalasia patients. History of prior pneumatic dilatation and small esophageal diameter were found to be risk factors by chi square and ANOVA. Conclusions: 1) Pneumatic dilatation for esophageal achalasia is a procedure with 4.4 percent risk of perforation and 0.6 percent mortality rate. 2) The risk of developping an esophageal perforation is increased by previous pneumatic dilatation and small esophageal diameter. Another risk factor such as a possible anatomical weakness of the esophageal wall (and the likelihood of it being evaluated by ultrasonography) at the site of perforation is suggested.

Esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilatation for achalasia: why?

A retropective study was perfomed to asses risk factors in patients with esophageal echalasia undergoing pneumatic dilatation. Of 140 patients who underwent 159 dilatations, 7 sustained esophageal perforation (4.4 percent). They were matched with a group of 52 non perforated, dilated achalasia patients. History of prior pneumatic dilatation and small esophageal diameter were found to be risk factors by chi square and ANOVA. Conclusions: 1) Pneumatic dilatation for esophageal achalasia is a procedure with 4.4 percent risk of perforation and 0.6 percent mortality rate. 2) The risk of developping an esophageal perforation is increased by previous pneumatic dilatation and small esophageal diameter. Another risk factor such as a possible anatomical weakness of the esophageal wall (and the likelihood of it being evaluated by ultrasonography) at the site of perforation is suggested. (AU)

Esophageal perforation after pneumatic dilatation for achalasia: why?

UNLABELLED: A retrospective study was performed to asses risk factors in patients with esophageal achalasia undergoing pneumatic dilatation. Of 140 patients who underwent 159 dilatations, 7 sustained esophageal perforation (4.4%). They were matched with a group of 52 non perforated, dilated achalasia patients. History of prior pneumatic dilatation and small esophageal diameter were found to be risk factors by chi square and ANOVA. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Pneumatic dilatation for esophageal achalasia is a procedure with 4.4% risk of perforation and 0.6% mortality rate. 2) The risk of developing an esophageal perforation is increased by previous pneumatic dilatation and small esophageal diameter. Another risk factor such as a possible anatomical weakness of the esophageal wall (and the likelihood of it being evaluated by ultrasonography) at the site of perforation is suggested.