Objective:To analyze the differences in esophageal motility between patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and functional esophageal disorders by comparing the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) barrier function, esophageal body motor function and results of provocative test.Methods:From December 2016 to December 2018, the 100 patients with typical symptoms of GERD, who visited The First Aftiliated Hospifal of Zhejiang Chinese Medical Universtiy wese selected. According to the Rome Ⅳ standand and the Lyon consensus, and the results of endoscopic examination, 24 h multichannel intratuminal impedante pH (MII-pH) monitoring and esophageal high resolution manometry (HRM), the patients were divided into GERD group ( n=32), hypersensitivity(RH) group ( n=33) and functional heartburn(FH) group ( n=35). According to the results of esophageal HRM, the differences in esophageal dynamics among the groups were analyzed. T test, variance analysis and Chi square test were performed for statistical analysis. Results:The lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure of GERD group was lower than that of FH group ((19.37±7.92) mmHg vs. (25.35±12.38) mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)); the EGJ-contractile integral of GERD group and RH group was lower than that of FH group ((20.84±21.52) mmHg·cm and (20.72±19.35) mmHg·cm vs. (35.93±36.82) mmHg·cm), and the level of distal contractile integral of GERD group was lower than that of FH group and RH group ((802.35±496.86) mmHg·s·cm vs. (1 316.84±853.92) mmHg·s·cm and (1 141.65±607.93) mmHg·s·cm), and the differences were statistically significant ( t=-2.377, -2.069, -2.149, -3.045 and -2.467, all P<0.05). There were no major motility disorders in patients of the three groups. The incidence of ineffective oesophageal motility of GERD group was higher than that of RH group and FH group (62.5%(20/32) vs. 39.4%(13/33) and 25.7%(9/35)), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=4.440 and 9.214, both P<0.05). Conclusions:GERD patients have abnormal esophageal motility, which is mainly manifested by reduced LES resting pressure, decreased EGJ barrier function, and abnormal peristalsis of the esophagus. Patients with RH also have decreased EGJ barrier function.

Background: The newly released Rome criteria in 2016 has a stricter and more precise definition of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) when compared with Rome III criteria. The adjustment and improvement of diagnostic criteria by Rome criteria may affect the clinical diagnosis of FGIDs. Aims: To investigate the differences and the similarities between Rome III and Rome criteria in the diagnosis of FGIDs in college students. Methods: The FGIDs database of college students in Zhejiang Province established by our previous research team were further evaluated and analyzed by Rome criteria, and the incidence, psychological symptom score, overlapping of disease of FGIDs were calculated, and compared with Rome III criteria. Results: Of the 1 870 cases in database, 1 025 (54.81%) met Rome criteria of FGIDs; while 1 111 (59.41%) met Rome III criteria, the difference in detection rate was statistically significant (P <0.01). In Rome group, incidences of belching disorders (2.14% vs. 5.83%, P<0.01), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (2.78% vs. 6.90%, P<0.01), functional abdominal bloating/distension (1.28% vs. 4.12%, P<0.01) were significantly lower than those in Rome III group, while incidence of functional diarrhea was significantly higher (3.85% vs. 0.70%, P<0.01). Patients met Rome criteria showed a higher score of obsession⁃compulsion, depression and anxiety (P<0.05). Rome criteria caused 33 (25.58%) original IBS patients included in functional diarrhea, and 6 (4.65%) original IBS patients included in function constipation. The diagnosis of functional bowel disease overlapping with other FGIDs (belching disorders, functional dyspepsia) according to Rome III and Rome criteria were statistically different (P<0.01, P<0.05). Conclusions: Rome criteria has a stricter and more accurate definition of FGIDs, reflecting a more accurate psychological and clinical features, and identification of patients who really need treatment, resulting in a more efficient and feasible application in clinical practice and scientific research.