Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2008;22(4):601–616. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2007.12.007

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Accuracy and variability in manometric and endoscopic pH electrode placement assessed by fluoroscopic imaging of final placement in reference to an endoclip placed at the SCJ. In all cases, the intended placement was 6 cm proximal to the SCJ. Data for the 18 subjects all of whom had both pH electrodes in place concurrently. Both intra-subject and inter-subject variability were greater with the manometric placement. Presumably, much of the inaccuracy in placement with both electrodes was attributable to shortening of the esophageal during the assessment of SCJ or LES position attributable to endoscopy or manometry. Modified from Pandolfino JE, Schreiner MA, Lee TJ, et al. Comparison of the Bravo™ Wireless and Digitrapper™ Catheter-based pH Monitoring Systems for Measuring Esophageal Acid Exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:1466–1476.