PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H E Mattox

Publications and source records attributed to H E Mattox.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Gastroesophageal pH step-up inaccurately locates proximal border of lower esophageal sphincter.

Limiting the widespread use of 24-hr pH monitoring is the necessity of manometrically placing the pH probe 5 cm above the proximal lower esophageal sphincter (LES) border. Therefore, we prospectively compared LES localization by gastroesophageal pH step-up with manometry in 71 patients and 14 asymptomatic volunteers. The gastroesophageal pH step-up significantly correlated with the proximal LES border in patients (r = 0.53, P less than 0.0001) and volunteers (r = 0.91, P less than 0.0001). Based on previously published criteria, the pH step-up value was considered acceptably accurate if it was within +/- 3 cm (6 cm total span) of the manometrically determined proximal LES border. In 58% of patients and 29% of volunteers the pH step-up occurred outside this accuracy range. Esophagitis (P = 0.015) and abnormal reflux parameters (P = 0.002) were variables contributing to this error. Subsequent analysis found that the pH step-up overestimated the proximal LES border and occurred at the midportion of the sphincter. The pH step-up still inaccurately located the mid LES in 34% of patients. Therefore, manometry should remain the standard for accurate LES localization prior to placing the pH probe.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

Enteral feeding tubes: placement by using fluoroscopy and endoscopy.

Fluoroscopy and endoscopy are both effective for guiding placement of enteral feeding tubes, but the relative advantages and limitations of the two methods are less clear. Consequently, we studied 104 consecutive patients referred for primary fluoroscopic placement of a Frederick-Miller feeding catheter. Success rate, fluoroscopic and room times, and tube position were determined. Unsuccessful fluoroscopic placement was followed immediately by an endoscopic attempt. The success rate for fluoroscopic placement was 90% (94/104), with the tube placed into the jejunum in 53% and into the duodenum in 47%. The fluoroscopic and room times for successful fluoroscopic placements were 8.6 +/- 5.6 min (mean +/- SD) and 21.7 +/- 8.4 min, respectively. For the 10 unsuccessful placements, the fluoroscopic and room times were 16.2 +/- 5.4 min (mean +/- SD) and 45.6 +/- 18.4 min, respectively. Both time differences were significant statistically. Endoscopic placement was successful in all seven patients in whom it was attempted, with a mean time of 13.4 min. The tubes placed endoscopically were in the jejunum in 29% and in the duodenum in 71%. Our results show that fluoroscopic and endoscopic placement of enteral feeding tubes is highly effective. Fluoroscopic time in successful cases is usually less than 15 min. Endoscopic placement of feeding tubes is successful after fluoroscopic failure.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Prolonged ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring in the evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a common problem that frequently presents with atypical complaints including nausea, hiccups, globus sensation, chest pain, hoarseness, coughing, or various pulmonary complaints. Diagnosis may be difficult, as these patients often do not have radiographic or endoscopic evidence of esophagitis. In these difficult cases, prolonged esophageal pH monitoring provides an accurate method of quantitating acid reflux parameters and correlating symptoms with reflux episodes in an outpatient setting. Current equipment is compact, durable, and not difficult to use or extremely expensive. Data analysis, with a particular emphasis on acid-exposure time (total, upright, supine), reliably discriminates between abnormal and normal subjects but it is not a perfect "gold standard" for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Indications for esophageal pH monitoring include: (1) atypical symptoms of acid reflux with normal endoscopy, (2) typical reflux symptoms unresponsive to medical therapy, and (3) the follow-up of reflux disease after either medical or surgical therapy. This test is currently performed primarily by gastroenterologists, but we believe many other groups may find this technology helpful. To meet these expanding applications, test refinements are necessary, particularly easier methods of placing the pH probe and better standards for defining abnormal pH parameters in older patients. The future for esophageal pH monitoring is bright. This technology has the potential to do for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease what endoscopy has done for the diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed1990

Dysphagia following fundoplication: "slipped" fundoplication versus achalasia complicated by fundoplication.

Failure to obtain preoperative esophageal manometry in patients being considered for antireflux surgery can result in immediate persistent postoperative dysphagia due to a missed diagnosis of achalasia. We describe the clinical assessment and management of a case of delayed postoperative dysphagia due to a "slipped" fundoplication, which is contrasted with three patients with immediate postoperative dysphagia due to a missed diagnosis of achalasia. Surgical revision was required to correct the "slipped" fundoplication, and pneumatic dilatation was successfully used in two of three cases of achalasia complicated by fundoplication. Careful preoperative esophageal evaluation with manometry is essential to rule out the presence of a primary esophageal motor disorder.

Aged↗
PubMed1984

Comparison of pharyngeal aspirate and amniotic fluid surfactant composition.

Amniotic fluid and oropharyngeal aspirate lung maturity profiles obtained simultaneously at delivery in 16 patients are compared. The lecithin/sphingomyelin ratio was greater in oropharyngeal aspirates than in amniotic fluid (p less than 0.02). The percent phosphatidylinositol was greater in oropharyngeal aspirates than in amniotic fluid (p less than 0.03). The mean differences between percent phosphatidylglycerol were not significant. These findings were uninfluenced by the time interval between amniotic fluid and oropharyngeal sampling, gestational age, or neonatal weight. These data could explain the lack of sensitivity of the amniotic fluid lung maturity profile.

Amniotic Fluid↗