Effects of Large Hiatal Hernias on Esophageal Peristalsis

Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611-2951, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.93). 04/2012; 147(4):352-7. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.17
Source: PubMed


Anatomic changes induced by large hiatal hernia may alter esophageal pressure topography measurements made during high-resolution manometry.
Retrospective study.
Single-institution tertiary hospital.
Ninety patients with large (>5 cm) hiatal hernias on endoscopy were compared with a control group of 46 patients without hernia selected from the same database of 2000 consecutive clinical high-resolution manometry studies.
High-resolution manometry with at least 7 evaluable swallows for analysis.
Esophageal pressure topography was analyzed for lower esophageal sphincter pressure, distal contractile integral, contraction amplitude, contractile front velocity, and distal latency time. Esophageal length was measured on esophageal pressure topography from the distal border of the upper esophageal sphincter to the proximal border of the lower esophageal sphincter. Esophageal pressure topography diagnosis was based on the Chicago Classification.
The manometry catheter was coiled in the hernia and did not traverse the diaphragm in 44 patients (49%) with large hernia. Patients with large hernias had lower average lower esophageal sphincter pressures, a lower distal contractile integral, slower contractile front velocity, and shorter distal latency time than patients without hernia. They also exhibited a shorter mean esophageal length. However, the distribution of peristaltic abnormalities was not different in patients with and without large hernia.
Patients with large hernias had an alteration of esophageal pressure topography measurements and a shortened esophagus. However, the distribution of peristaltic disorders was unaffected by the presence of hernia.

Download full-text


Available from: Peter J Kahrilas,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Esophageal motor function is highly coordinated between central and enteric nervous systems and the esophageal musculature, which consists of proximal skeletal and distal smooth muscle in three functional regions, the upper and lower esophageal sphincters, and the esophageal body. While upper endoscopy is useful in evaluating for structural disorders of the esophagus, barium esophagography, radionuclide transit studies, and esophageal intraluminal impedance evaluate esophageal transit and partially assess motor function. However, esophageal manometry is the test of choice for the evaluation of esophageal motor function. In recent years, high-resolution manometry (HRM) has streamlined the process of acquisition and display of esophageal pressure data, while uncovering hitherto unrecognized esophageal physiologic mechanisms and pathophysiologic patterns. New algorithms have been devised for analysis and reporting of esophageal pressure topography from HRM. The clinical value of HRM extends to the pediatric population, and complements preoperative evaluation prior to foregut surgery. Provocative maneuvers during HRM may add to the assessment of esophageal motor function. The addition of impedance to HRM provides bolus transit data, but impact on clinical management remains unclear. Emerging techniques such as 3-D HRM and impedance planimetry show promise in the assessment of esophageal sphincter function and esophageal biomechanics.
    Neurogastroenterology and Motility 02/2013; 25(2):99-133. DOI:10.1111/nmo.12071 · 3.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Esophageal acid retention in a hiatal hernia (HH) may play a role in gastro-esophageal reflux. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of bolus retention (BR) in HH and to compare pressure profiles in patients with HH with BR in the hernia to those with bolus clearance (BC) through the hernia using high-resolution esophageal manometry with impedance (HREMI). Clinical HREMI studies with HH ≥1.5 cm were analyzed for lower esophageal sphincter (LES) and crural diaphragm (CD) pressures and pressure profiles during 12 saline swallows. Impedance was analyzed for swallow retention in the HH. Bolus retention in a HH was present in 35 of 53 (66%) patients with a HH. Patients with BR had overall lower pressure profiles including a lower basal LES pressure (14.8 ± 10.6 vs 28.9 ± 16.8 mmHg; p = 0.0001), LES-CD gradient (6.8 ± 17.9 vs 20.6 ± 12.2 mmHg; p = 0.002), residual LES pressure (2.5 ± 4.6 vs 6.1 ± 12.2 mmHg; p = 0.017), amplitude of distal esophageal contractions (83.2 ± 38.8 vs 111.2 ± 42.8 mmHg; p = 0.020), and distal contractile integral (1487 ± 1016 vs 2608 ± 1221 mmHg-cm-sec; p = 0.001) compared to the BC group. Patients with BR were more likely to have a larger sized HH compared to the BC group (3.1 ± 1.6 vs 2.1 ± 0.6 cm; p = 0.016); similar pressure changes were found when the groups were divided up by HH sizes. Bolus retention was seen in 66% of patients with HH. Bolus retention in the HH was associated with larger HH size, lower LES pressure, and lower esophageal contractile pressures compared to those with BC.
    Neurogastroenterology and Motility 01/2014; 26(5). DOI:10.1111/nmo.12312 · 3.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: High-resolution manometry (HRM) allows nuanced evaluation of esophageal motor function, and more accurate evaluation of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function, in comparison with conventional manometry. Pathophysiologic correlates of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and esophageal peristaltic performance are well addressed by this technique. HRM may alter the surgical decision by assessment of esophageal peristaltic function and exclusion of esophageal outflow obstruction before antireflux surgery. Provocative testing during HRM may assess esophageal smooth muscle peristaltic reserve and help predict the likelihood of transit symptoms following antireflux surgery. HRM represents a continuously evolving new technology that compliments the evaluation and management of GERD.
    Gastroenterology clinics of North America 03/2014; 43(1):69-87. DOI:10.1016/j.gtc.2013.11.005 · 2.82 Impact Factor
Show more