title: Transcutaneous cervical esophagus ultrasound in adults: relation with ambulatory 24-h pH-monitoring and esophageal manometry.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine the gastroesophageal refluxate in the cervical esophagus (CE) and measure transcutaneous cervical esophageal ultrasound (TCEUS) findings [anterior wall thickness (WT) of CE, esophageal luminal diameter (ELD), esophageal diameter (ED)]; to compare TCEUS findings in the patient subgroups divided according to 24-h esophageal pH monitoring and manometry; and to investigate possible cut-off values according to the TCEUS findings as a predictor of gastroesophageal reflux (GER).
  
  
  METHODS
  In 45/500 patients, refluxate was visualized in TCEUS. 38/45 patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), 24-h pH monitoring and manometry.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 38 patients were grouped according to 24-h pH monitoring as follows: Group A: GER-positive (n = 20) [Includes Group B: isolated proximal reflux (PR) (n = 6), Group C: isolated distal reflux (DR) (n = 6), and Group D: both PR/DR (n = 8)]; Group E: no reflux (n = 13); and Group F: hypersensitive esophagus (HSE) (n = 5). Groups B + D indicated total PR patients (n = 14), Groups E + F reflux-negatives with HSE (n = 18), and Groups A + F reflux-positives with HSE (n = 25). When the 38 patients were grouped according to manometry findings, 24 had normal esophageal manometry; 7 had hypotensive and 2 had hypertensive lower esophageal sphincter (LES); and 5 had ineffective esophageal motility disorder (IEM). The ELD measurement was greater in group A + F than group E (P = 0.023, 5.0 +/- 1.3 vs 3.9 +/- 1.4 mm). In 27/38 patients, there was at least one pathologic acid reflux and/or pathologic manometry finding. The cut-off value for ELD of 4.83 mm had 79% sensitivity and 61% specificity in predicting the PR between Groups B + D and E (AUC = 0.775, P = 0.015).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Visualizing refluxate in TCEUS was useful as a pre-diagnostic tool for estimating GER or manometric pathology in 71.1% of adults in our study, but it was not diagnostic for CE WT.
authors: Gastroenterology Department, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Hospital, Dikmen Cad 220/A, No 17 Dikmen, Ankara, Turkey.
authors: Sabite
authors: S
authors: Kacar
authors: Selma
authors: S
authors: Uysal
authors: Sedef
authors: S
authors: Kuran
authors: Ulku
authors: U
authors: Dagli
authors: Yasemin
authors: Y
authors: Ozin
authors: Erdem
authors: E
authors: Karabulut
authors: Nurgul
authors: N
authors: Sasmaz
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D050782:Esophageal pH Monitoring; D004947:Esophagus / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology*; D005260:Female; D005764:Gastroesophageal Reflux / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008365:Manometry / Q000379:methods; D008875:Middle Aged; D018670:Monitoring, Ambulatory / Q000379:methods; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000379:methods