Post Esophagectomy Hiatal Hernia; Expect the Unexpected

Characteristics of esophageal motility measured by high resolution esophageal manometry in hiatal hernia patients

AIM: To investigate the functional change of esophageal motility in hiatal hernia (HH) patients using high resolution esophageal manometry (HRM), in order to determine the possible pathogenesis of HH and provide more evidence for detection and treatment of HH.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 66 patients with hiatal hernia who underwent HRM from June 2014 to April 2015 as well as upper endoscopy and/or barium esophagogram within 3 mo at our hospital. Among them, 31 patients were diagnosed with reflux esophagitis (RE) by endoscopy. Besides, we selected 28 healthy volunteers as controls to compare clinical characteristics and HRM data between the three groups.

RESULTS: In total there were 35 patients with HH alone (Group A), of whom 16 had typical symptoms including acid reflux and heartburn, 12 suffered main symptoms resembling retrosternal pain, and the remainder had typical symptoms including dysphagia and belching. After HRM, 4 of them were diagnosed with esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction, 1 with severe esophageal motility disorder, and 9 with mild esophageal motility disorder. In total there were 31 patients with RE (Group B), of whom 20 had typical symptoms including acid reflux and heartburn, 6 suffered main symptoms resembling retrosternal pain, and the remainder had typical symptoms including dysphagia and belching. After HRM, 2 of them were diagnosed with esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction, 3 with severe esophageal motility disorder, and 10 with mild esophageal motility disorder. There was no significant difference in the above findings between groups A and B (P > 0.05). Lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure in groups A and B was significantly lower than that in the control group (P = 0.016), especially group A (13.43 mmHg ± 8.75 mmHg vs 21.66 mmHg ± 7.19 mmHg, P = 0.004). Upper esophageal sphincter (UES) pressure had no significant difference among the three groups (P = 0.854). However, the morbidity of UES hypotensive pressure was significantly higher in group A than the control group (25.7% vs 3.6%, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSION: About 40% of HH patients have esophageal motility disorders. HH patients have significantly lower LES and UES pressure than the health group. The reduced LES and UES pressure and esophageal motility disorder may play a crucial role in reflux events and even result in esophageal mucosal injury. HRM can provide accurate and exhaustive data to guide diagnosis and evaluate prognosis.