Background/Aims: The Lyon Consensus defined parameters based on upper endoscopy and 24-hour combined multichannel intraluminal impedancepH (MII-pH), that conclusively establish the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, the true role of upper endoscopy and MII-pH to evaluate patients with extraesophageal symptoms (EES) has not been well established. Hypopharyngeal MII (HMII), which directly measures laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) events, has been utilized to evaluate patients with EES suggestive of LPR. Methods: This was a retrospective study involving patients with EES for > 12 weeks despite proton pump inhibitor therapy, and had no endoscopic confirmatory evidence for GERD and negative MII-pH. All patients were subsequently referred for further evaluation of EES with “unknown” etiology and underwent laryngoscopy and HMII. Based on HMII, abnormal proximal exposure (APE) was defined as LPR ≥ 1/day and/or full column reflux (reflux 2 cm distal to the upper esophageal sphincter) > 4/day. Patients with APE were offered antireflux surgery (ARS) and the outcome of ARS was objectively assessed using Reflux Symptom Index. Results: Of 21 patients with EES which was thought to be GERD-unrelated based on endoscopy and MII-pH, 17 patients (81%) had APE. Eight patients with APE who had undergone ARS had significant symptomatic improvement in the Reflux Symptom Index score (19.6 ± 4.9 pre-ARS to 5.8 ± 1.4 post-ARS, P = 0.008). Conclusions A conventional diagnostic approach using endoscopy and MII-pH may not be sufficient to evaluate patients with EES suggestive of LPR. HMII is essential to evaluate patients with EES, and APE could be a reliable indicator for successful treatment outcomes.

Background/Aims: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) contribute to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, the causes of EMDs and their impact on gastroesophageal reflux disease-associated symptoms remain unknown. This study aims to elucidate clinical features associated with various types of EMDs in patients with heartburn symptoms. Methods: Of the 511 patients who underwent high-resolution manometry, 394 who were evaluated for heartburn symptoms were examined. Patients subjected to high-resolution manometry were classified into 4 groups: outflow obstruction group, hypermotility group, hypomotility group, and normal motility group. Symptoms were evaluated using 3 questionnaires. Patient characteristics and symptoms for each EMD type were compared with those of the normal motility group. Results: Of the 394 patients, 193 (48.9%) were diagnosed with EMDs, including 71 with outflow obstruction, 15 with hypermotility, and 107 with hypomotility. The mean dysphagia score was significantly higher in each of the 3 EMD groups compared with those with normal motility. The mean acid reflux and dyspepsia scores were significantly lower in the outflow obstruction group (P < 0.05). The mean body mass index and median Brinkman index were significantly higher in the hypermotility group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively), whereas the mean diarrhea and constipation scores were significantly lower in the hypomotility group (P < 0.05). Conclusions The results of our study indicate that different EMDs have distinct characteristics. Cigarette smoking and high body mass index were associated with esophageal hypermotility. Assessment of the dysphagia symptom scores may help identify patients with EMDs.

Background/Aims: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) contribute to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, the causes of EMDs and their impact on gastroesophageal reflux disease-associated symptoms remain unknown. This study aims to elucidate clinical features associated with various types of EMDs in patients with heartburn symptoms. Methods: Of the 511 patients who underwent high-resolution manometry, 394 who were evaluated for heartburn symptoms were examined. Patients subjected to high-resolution manometry were classified into 4 groups: outflow obstruction group, hypermotility group, hypomotility group, and normal motility group. Symptoms were evaluated using 3 questionnaires. Patient characteristics and symptoms for each EMD type were compared with those of the normal motility group. Results: Of the 394 patients, 193 (48.9%) were diagnosed with EMDs, including 71 with outflow obstruction, 15 with hypermotility, and 107 with hypomotility. The mean dysphagia score was significantly higher in each of the 3 EMD groups compared with those with normal motility. The mean acid reflux and dyspepsia scores were significantly lower in the outflow obstruction group (P < 0.05). The mean body mass index and median Brinkman index were significantly higher in the hypermotility group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively), whereas the mean diarrhea and constipation scores were significantly lower in the hypomotility group (P < 0.05). Conclusions The results of our study indicate that different EMDs have distinct characteristics. Cigarette smoking and high body mass index were associated with esophageal hypermotility. Assessment of the dysphagia symptom scores may help identify patients with EMDs.