©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 26, 2020; 8(4): 723-735
Published online Feb 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i4.723
Published online Feb 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i4.723
Table 6 Comparisons of high-resolution esophageal manometry results between pretreatment and posttreatment
| HREM results | Pretreatment | Posttreatment | P value |
| UES restP (mmHg; mean ± SD) | 68.08 ± 47.90 | 48.75 ± 27.30 | 0.674 |
| UES RP (mmHg; mean ± SD) | 11.18 ± 7.93 | 5.35 ± 4.77 | 0.036a |
| LES restP (mmHg; mean ± SD) | 41.91± 9.20 | 26.18 ± 13.08 | 0.017a |
| LES IRP (mmHg; mean ± SD) | 38.94 ± 10.28 | 16.71 ± 5.65 | 0.012a |
| Failed swallow [n (%)] | 8 (100.00) | 8 (100.00) | 1.000 |
| Panesophageal pressurization [n (%)] | 8 (100.00) | 3 (37.50) | 0.038a |
| Early contraction [n (%)] | 1 (12.50) | 1 (12.50) | 1.000 |
| Rapid contraction [n (%)] | 1 (12.50) | 0 (0.00) | 0.721 |
| Small-break [n (%)] | 0 (0.00) | 1 (12.50) | 0.721 |
| Large-break [n (%)] | 0 (0.00) | 1 (12.50) | 0.721 |
- Citation: Huang CZ, Huang ZW, Liang HM, Wang ZJ, Guo TT, Chen YP. Upper esophageal sphincter abnormalities on high-resolution esophageal manometry and treatment response of type II achalasia. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(4): 723-735
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i4/723.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i4.723