[Differences between Chicago and traditional classifications in the diagnosis of esophageal motor disorders with high-resolution manometry and topography of esophageal pressure].

Background: With the introduction of high resolution manometry (HRM) and esophageal topography a novel classification (Chicago Classification) has been proposed for the diagnosis of esophageal motor disorders (EMD). Clinical differences with the traditional classification are currently under evaluation.

Aim: To investigate differences between the Chicago (CC) and traditional (TC) classifications in the diagnosis of EMD.

Methods: Consecutive patients with indication for esophageal manometry were studied. HRM was performed with a 36 sensors solid-state catheter and Manoview software (V2.0).Conventional manometric tracings were analyzed by an investigator blinded to the results of HRM. Diagnosis by CC and CT were compared.

Results: Two hundred patients were studied, 106 (53%) of them women (53%) with a mean patient age of 43.4 (range 16 - 84) years. Preoperative evaluation for GERD 152 (76%) was the most frequent indication. Achalasia (8), scleroderma (2) and peristaltic dysfunction (60 vs. 59) were similarly diagnosed by CC and CT. Spastic disorders were more frequently identified by CC: nutcracker esophagus (NC) in 3, spastic NC in3 and segmental NC in 11 patients versus TC: NC 5. Three patients had spasm with CC and 1 with TC. Non specific motor disorder was diagnosed by TC and 2 patients had functional obstruction with CC. Hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter was identified in 63 patients with CC vs.57 with TC.

Conclusions: Spastic disorders and functional obstruction were the EMD better identified by HRM and CC.