Gastroesophageal reflux disease: Integrating the barium esophagram before and after antireflux surgery

Cleveland Clinic Center for Swallowing and Esophageal Disorders, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 06/2007; 243(2):329-39. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2432050057
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common medical problem in the United States. As a result, laparoscopic antireflux surgery is a common surgical procedure. At the authors' institution, the barium esophagram before and after antireflux surgery is a critical examination in patients with GERD. This article summarizes the authors' examination protocol and describes how the findings are integrated in the care of these patients.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following on surgical treatments for Barrett's esophagus includes commentaries on the indications for antireflux surgery after medical treatment; the effects of the various procedures on the lower esophageal sphincter; the role of impaired esophageal motility and delayed gastric emptying in the choice of the surgical procedure; indications for associated highly selective vagotomy, duodenal switch, and gastric electrical stimulation; therapeutic strategies for detection and treatment of shortened esophagus; the role of antireflux surgery on the regression of metaplastic mucosa and the risk of malignant progression; the detection of asymptomatic reflux brfore bariatric surgery; the role of non-GERD symptoms on the results of surgery; and the indications of Collis gastroplasty and choice of the type of fundoplication.
    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 09/2011; 1232:175-95. DOI:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06051.x · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a highly prevalent condition that imposes a significant economic impact on the US health care system. The utility of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease has not been adequately reviewed. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to provide an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. EMBASE (1980-December 2008), OVID MEDLINE, and PubMed, (1966-December 2008) were searched using "gastroesophageal reflux" and "adults" with other terms, including medications, diagnostic tests, symptoms, and epidemiologic terms. Studies were limited to human trials, English language, and full articles. Heartburn is a reasonably sensitive symptom for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease, although it does not reliably predict esophagitis. Standardized questionnaires have limited specificity, whereas the double-contrast barium swallow has a low sensitivity to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux. The role of esophageal manometry is limited to accurate placement of a pH-measuring device. pH testing has reasonable sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. The sensitivity of upper endoscopy to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux is lower than that of pH tests. The diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease remains difficult. In the absence of alarm symptoms, empiric treatment with acid suppression is warranted. pH testing provides valuable information in many patients, although the clinical utility of newer tests needs to be determined. Endoscopy should not be the first test used to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux.
    The American journal of medicine 07/2010; 123(7):583-92. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.01.007 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with dysphagia can initially undergo either endoscopic or radiologic evaluation, depending on the clinical history and physician preference. We usually recommend that most patients with dysphagia initially undergo barium esophagography, and in this paper we discuss its role in evaluating dysphagia.
    Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 03/2009; 76(2):105-11. DOI:10.3949/ccjm.76a.08032 · 3.37 Impact Factor