Examination of the Hiatal Defence Mechanism with Manometry Including an Abdominal Pressure Test. A Comparative Study with 24-Hour pH Monitoring and Esophagoscopy

  • Björn Sandmark
  • Håkan Enbom
  • Stig Sandmark
Conference paper


A normally efficient clamping mechanism between the stomach and the esophagus prevents backflow of gastric contents into the esophagus. There is a widespread conception that the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) constitutes the most important protection against reflux, irrespective of whether the location of the sphincter is in the hiatal channel or, as in the case of a sliding hernia, in the thoracic cavity [1–2]. However, there is also conflicting evidence, and some authors have stressed the importance of the hiatal mechanism in preventing reflux [3–9]. On contraction of the diaphragm, the muscles around the hiatus also contract, thereby pinching the esophagogastric tract which passes through the hiatus. One can also consider the hiatus simply as a gap. When there is an increased pressure difference across the diaphragm, the stomach wall and/or other viscera are forced towards and into the hiatal channel. Herniation may occur, and thereby the hiatal channel can be plugged, thus constricting the lumen of the esophagogastric tract.


Lower Esophageal Sphincter Hiatus Level Reflux Time Abdominal Compression Rubber Bladder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Castell DO (1992) The esophagus. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen S, Harris LD (1971) Does hiatus hernia affect competence of the gastroesophageal sphincter? N Engl J Med 284: 1053–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards DAW (1982) The anti-reflux mechanism, its disorders and their consequences. In: Connel AM (ed) Clinics in gastroenterology, vol 11. WB Saunders, London, pp 479–496Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sandmark S (1963) Hiatal incompetence. Acta Radiol [Suppl] (Stock) 919: 1–46Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandmark S (1963) Intraluminal pressures and pH in hiatus hernia and gastroesophageal reflux. Acta Otolaryngol 56: 683–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindell D, Sandmark S (1979) Hiatal incompetence and gastro-oesophageal reflux. Acta Radiol 20: 626–636Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mittal RK, Rochester DF, McCallum RW (1988) Electrical and mechanical activity in the human lower esophageal sphincter during diaphragmatic contraction. J Clin Invest 81: 1182–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mittal RK, Rochester DF, McCallum RW (1989) Sphincteric action of the diaphragm during a relaxed lower esophageal sphincter in humans. Am J Physiol 256: G139–G144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mittal RK, Fisher M, McCallum RW, Rochester DF, Dent J, Sluss J (1990) Human lower esophageal sphincter pressure response to increased intra-abdominal pressure. Am J Physiol 258: G624–G630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeMeester TR, Wang CI, Werkly JA, Pellegrini CA, Little AG, Klementschitsch P, Bermudez G, Johnson LF, Skinner DB (1980) Technique, indications and clinical use of 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 79: 656–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Savary M, Miller G (1978) The esophagus. Gassmann, SolothurnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Björn Sandmark
  • Håkan Enbom
  • Stig Sandmark
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyÖrebro Medical Center HospitalÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations