Analysis of computed tomographic findings according to gastroesophageal flap valve grade

Background/Aims: The gastroesophageal junction is an important barrier against gastroesophageal ref lux. Endoscopic grading of gastroesophageal f lap valve is simple, reproducible, and may predict reflux activity. We investigated the correlation between gastroesophageal flap valve grade and the gast...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Korean journal of internal medicine 2018-03, Vol.33 (2), p.295
Main Authors: Hye Kyung Jeon, Gwang Ha Kim, Nam Kyung Lee, Suk Kim, Bong Eun Lee, Geun Am Song
Format: Article
Language:Korean
Subjects:
Computed tomography
Endoscopy
Gastroesophageal f lap valve
Gastroesophageal ref lux
His angle
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background/Aims: The gastroesophageal junction is an important barrier against gastroesophageal ref lux. Endoscopic grading of gastroesophageal f lap valve is simple, reproducible, and may predict reflux activity. We investigated the correlation between gastroesophageal flap valve grade and the gastroesophageal junction’s structural properties using abdominal computed tomography. Methods: A total of 138 patients with early gastric cancer who underwent both pre-treatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy and water-distended stomach two-phase computed tomography were enrolled. Endoscopic gastroesophageal f lap valve grade and abdominal computed tomography findings were analyzed to assess anatomical factors including the gastroesophageal junction and related organs. Results: The angle of His increased significantly with gastroesophageal flap valve grade (grade I, 65.2˚ ± 19.6˚; grade II, 66.6˚ ± 19.8˚; grade III, 76.7˚ ± 11.9˚; grade IV, 120.0˚ ± 30.3˚; p < 0.001), as did the size of the diaphragmatic hiatus (grade I, 213.0 ± 53.8 mm 2 ; grade II, 232.6 ± 71.0 mm 2 ; grade III, 292.3 ± 99.2 mm 2 ; grade IV, 584.4 ± 268.3; p < 0.001). The length of the abdominal esophagus decreased as gastroesophageal flap valve grade increased (grade I, 34.6 ± 5.8 mm; grade II, 32.0 ± 6.5 mm; grade III, 24.6 ± 7.8 mm; grade IV, -22.6 ± 38.2 mm; p < 0.001). There was no significant relationship between gastroesophageal flap valve grade and visceral and subcutaneous fat areas (p = 0.877 and p = 0.508, respectively). Conclusions: Endoscopic grading of the gastroesophageal flap valve is well correlated with anatomical changes around the gastroesophageal junction on abdominal computed tomography, and it can provide useful information about the anti-reflux barrier.
ISSN:1226-3303