A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

A comparison of various intragastric balloons for the assessment of gastric motility. | LitMetric

A comparison of various intragastric balloons for the assessment of gastric motility.

Neurogastroenterol Motil

Translational Research Center for Gastrointestinal Disorders, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Published: December 2018


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: There is a clear need for a novel method to readily assess gastric motility in daily clinical practice.

Methods: In a crossover design, 10 noncompliant balloons of different shape and volume (25-350 mL), attached to a classic feeding tube, were introduced in the stomach of eight healthy volunteers. In the same experiment, a High-Resolution Manometry (HRM) catheter was positioned throughout the stomach. Gastric motility was recorded during fasting (2 hours) and liquid nutrient administration (30 minutes). Motility was quantified using a peak detection algorithm. Symptoms were recorded throughout the experiment using visual analog scales (100 mm). Results are presented as mean ± SD.

Key Results: The % time during which motility-induced pressure increments could be detected with HRM but not by the balloon varied from 42 ± 24% in the smallest (25 mL) balloon to 1 ± 1% in the 330 mL balloon. On the other hand, bloating, discomfort and nausea scores were 0 ± 0, 0 ± 0 and 2 ± 5 mm, respectively, for the smallest balloon (25 mL) while these scores were 28 ± 38, 13 ± 30, and 38 ± 30 mm, respectively, for the largest balloon (350 mL). A phase III contraction pattern was consistently evoked in balloons with a volume >200 mL.

Conclusion: Gastric motility could be assessed more accurately with larger volume balloons, while epigastric symptoms were evoked with increasing balloon volume. The optimal balloon to measure gastric motility has a 5 cm diameter and is 11 cm long (210 mL). A nasogastric balloon catheter can now be developed that enables relatively easy monitoring of gastric motility in patients with epigastric symptoms.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13453DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gastric motility
24
balloon
8
epigastric symptoms
8
motility
7
gastric
6
comparison intragastric
4
balloons
4
intragastric balloons
4
balloons assessment
4
assessment gastric
4

Similar Publications