Next Article in Journal
Short Half-Life of Des-γ-Carboxy Prothrombin Is a Superior Factor for Early Prediction of Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Radiofrequency Ablation
Previous Article in Journal
Early Assessment of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Luminal B-like Subtype of Breast Cancer Patients: A Single-Center Prospective Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Crohn’s Disease Small-Bowel Mucosal Healing Using Capsule Endoscopy and Usefulness of Leucine-Rich α2-Glycoprotein
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/diagnostics13040695
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Usefulness of Endoscopy for the Detection and Diagnosis of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders and Diseases Relating to Abnormal Esophageal Motility

by
Shiko Kuribayashi
*,
Hiroko Hosaka
and
Toshio Uraoka
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi 371-0851, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2023, 13(4), 695; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040695
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 9 January 2023 / Accepted: 8 February 2023 / Published: 12 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Endoscopic Imaging in Gastrointestinal Diseases)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is performed to rule out organic diseases in the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders (EMDs). Abnormal endoscopic findings can be observed during EGD, which indicate the presence of EMDs. Several endoscopic findings at both the esophagogastric junction and esophageal body that are related to EMDs have been reported. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) could be detected during EGD, and these diseases are often associated with abnormal esophageal motility. Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) could improve the detection of these diseases during EGD. Although no report has been published previously on the potential usefulness of IEE in the endoscopic diagnosis of EMDs, IEE can be used to detect disorders that can be associated with abnormal esophageal motility.

1. Introduction

Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) can cause dysphagia or chest pain and are diagnosed by esophageal manometry or esophagram. Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is performed in the diagnosis of EMDs to rule out organic diseases, such as esophageal cancer or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), typical endoscopic findings are sometimes seen during EGD in patients with EMDs that could indicate the presence of EMDs [1].
EMDs are classified as either primary or secondary EMDs. The Chicago classification classified primary EMDs based on characteristics of esophageal motility abnormalities as achalasia, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, hypercontractile esophagus, absent contractility, or ineffective esophageal motility [2]. Distal esophageal spasm and hypercontractile esophagus are known as spastic EMDs.
The utility of image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) in both the detection and evaluation of esophageal cancers, including Barrett’s adenocarcinoma [3,4,5,6,7], has been well established. Narrow band imaging (NBI), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (FICE) [8,9], blue laser imaging (BLI) [10], linked color imaging (LCI) [11] and i-scan [12] are currently used. Several papers discuss the usefulness of IEE in the detection of non-malignant diseases, such as GERD.
Nowadays, per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is widely performed in patients with achalasia [13]. Not only short-term but also long-term outcomes of POEM have been published [14,15,16]. In addition, the usefulness of POEM in patients with non-achalasia spastic motility disorders has been reported, and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends POEM for spastic motility disorders other than achalasia [17].
Thus, endoscopic treatment is useful to manage achalasia or spastic esophageal motility disorders. However, it is not known whether endoscopy is useful in the diagnosis of EMDs and whether IEE is useful in diagnosing EMDs. In this review, we focused on the usefulness of endoscopy for the detection and diagnosis of EMDs.

2. Detection or Diagnosis

2.1. Endoscopic Findings Related to Primary EMDs

Several endoscopic findings are often seen in patients with achalasia: dilated esophagus, tortuous esophagus, presence of residue and functional stenosis of the esophago-gastric junction (EGJ), which means resistance when the scope is passing through at the EGJ [1,18,19]. The presence of “foam” in the esophagus suggests the presence of EMDs but is not a specific finding of EMDs [1]. Esophageal rosette represents impaired EGJ relaxation [20]. In healthy subjects the esophageal palisade vessels can be seen during a deep inspiration; however, the full extent of the esophageal palisade vessels cannot be observed even during the deep inspiration and rosette-like appearance is often seen at the EGJ in patients with achalasia (Figure 1). Recently, Gingko leaf sign has been reported as a new endoscopic finding of achalasia [21]. The full extent of the esophageal palisade vessels cannot be seen, and a Gingko leaf-shaped morphology of a longitudinal section of the EGJ at the end of a deep inspiration is sometimes seen in patients with achalasia in whom esophageal rosette cannot be seen (Figure 2). Champagne glass (CG) sign is an endoscopic finding that suggests the presence of impaired EGJ relaxation [22]. The CG sign is defined as the failure of the proximal border of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) to open; however, the abdominal esophagus at the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) is open in the retroflex view from the stomach (Figure 3 and Figure 4). CG can be classified into two types: CG-1 is when the distance from the SCJ to the proximal border of the LES is less than one centimeter, and CG-2 is when the same distance is more than one centimeter. The CG sign was seen in 71.3% of patients with achalasia; CG-1 in 65.1% and CG-2 in 6.1% [22].
A pinstripe pattern in the esophageal body has been reported as an endoscopic finding in patients with achalasia in the early stages [23]. The pinstripe pattern is defined as the presence of longitudinal superficial wrinkles of the esophageal mucosa (Figure 5). The pinstripe pattern was observed in 60.7% of achalasia patients overall, and it was observed in 62.5% of patients with a history shorter than 10 years.
A corona appearance has also been reported as an endoscopic finding indicating impaired EGJ relaxation [24]. The corona appearance is defined as positive when all the following three criteria are met upon observation of the LES performed with the attached short-type ST hood: (a) congestion inside the hood, (b) ischemic change around the hood, and (c) palisade vessels outside the hood. The corona appearance had the highest sensitivity compared with other endoscopic findings in the study, such as functional stenosis of the EGJ, mucosal thickening and whitish change, abnormal contraction of the esophageal body, dilation of the esophageal lumen and food remnant. Since a short-type ST Hood is necessary for evaluating the presence of the corona appearance, it cannot be observed during the routine EGD.
Regarding endoscopic findings in patients with non-achalasia spastic EMDs, corkscrew esophagus is known as an endoscopic finding that represents abnormal esophageal contraction (Figure 6) [25,26]. It can be seen in patients with diffuse esophageal spasm or hypercontractile esophagus [27]. In a multicenter cohort study in Japan with 87 patients with Jackhammer esophagus, abnormal endoscopic findings were detected in 32% of the patients [28]. Corkscrew or rosary beads appearance was seen in 26% of the patients and esophageal narrowing was present in 11% of the patients. Although the corkscrew appearance is a typical endoscopic finding that indicates the presence of EMDs, there is often no abnormality observed during EGD in patients with a hypercontractile esophagus.
Evaluation of weak contractions in the esophageal body is challenging. The esophageal lumen is occluded during esophageal peristalsis in subjects with normal esophageal motility. It has been reported that non-occlusive contraction could indicate weak peristalsis [29,30].

2.2. Endoscopic Findings That Could be Associated with EMDs

2.2.1. Diverticulum or Esophageal Intramural Pseudodiverticulosis

Esophageal diverticulum could indirectly suggest the presence of EMDs [31,32,33]. Intraluminal pressure in the esophagus increases due to esophageal dysmotility, which could cause a diverticulum. An esophageal diverticulum due to pulsion could occur in any part of the esophagus. Epiphrenic diverticulum can be observed just above the EGJ [34].
Esophageal intramural pseudodiverticulosis (EIPD) is a rare condition in which multiple small outpouchings are seen in the wall of the esophagus. EIPD could be associated with esophageal motility disorders, such as achalasia [35].

2.2.2. Candida Esophagitis

Candida esophagitis could be observed in patients with EMDs [36]. Stasis of fluid or food in the esophagus could cause candidiasis. Although there are many causes of candida esophagitis in addition to EMDs, candida esophagitis with stasis could be a sign of EMD. It should be noted that candida esophagitis could worsen the symptoms and prevent the detection of esophageal cancer in patients with EMDs.

2.3. Identification of Primary EMDs during EGD

It has been reported that only 38% of patients with achalasia who were diagnosed by esophageal manometry were diagnosed correctly by EGD [37]. However, careful endoscopic observation can raise the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of EMDs. When 20 patients with achalasia, 13 patients with systemic sclerosis and 33 controls were evaluated, the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of esophageal motility was 96% [29]. When 380 patients with dysphagia who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) were evaluated, the incidence of abnormal endoscopic findings was 64.4% [30]. In the study functional stenosis of the EGJ, residue in the esophagus and non-occlusive contraction were significantly associated with EMDs. When 273 patients who underwent HREM were evaluated, abnormal endoscopic findings were not observed during EGD in 41 out of 273 patients (15%) [38].

2.4. Endoscopic Findings of Diseases That Could Be Related to Abnormal Esophageal Motility

2.4.1. GERD

GERD can be divided into three phenotypes based on endoscopic findings: reflux esophagitis (RE), non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) and Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Mucosal breaks are seen in endoscopy in RE, while they are not seen in NERD, although typical reflux symptoms are present. BE is characterized as columnar epithelium in the esophagus.
GERD is associated with abnormal esophageal motility [39]. Longer acid exposure time (AET) in the supine position was observed in patients with abnormal esophageal body motility [40,41]. Increasing severity of GERD is associated with decreasing resting EGJ pressure and amplitude of the distal esophagus, higher prevalence of hiatal hernia and increased prevalence of ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) [42]. Fragmented peristalsis is often seen in patients with GERD, especially in those with BE [43]. Since patients with BE have low resting EGJ pressure [44], low amplitude of peristalsis and frequent failed peristalsis [45], higher acid exposure in the esophagus was observed [46]. The severity of esophageal motility abnormalities in patients with BE could be comparable to those in patients with severe reflux esophagitis [47]. In addition, ineffective esophageal contraction in patients with BE could persist on provocative tests, such as rapid drink challenge or solid meal [48]. Primary peristalsis in patients with NERD could be comparable to that in subjects without GERD; however, the triggering of secondary peristalsis could be defective in patients with NERD, which could lead to prolonged AET [49]. It has been reported that the vigor of peristalsis during multiple rapid swallows was inversely correlated with AET in patients with NERD [50]. Moreover, esophageal motility abnormalities could be detected during a solid meal test although there was no abnormal esophageal motility during liquid swallows in patients with NERD [51].
The LA classification has been proposed to assess the severity of RE [52]. This classification has been validated and is widely used across the world [53]. Although there are observer variations that depend on the level of endoscopic experience [54], the reproducibility of the classification was good for both expert and trainee endoscopists in a study in which inter- and intra-observer consistency of the classification was assessed [55].
Minimal change (LA Grade M) is often used in Japan. LA grade M is defined as erythema without sharp demarcation, whitish turbidity and/or invisibility of vessels [56,57,58]. It has been reported that minimal changes were observed in patients with reflux symptoms more frequently than in those without reflux symptoms [59]. Moreover, acid reflux events detection by 24 h esophageal pH monitoring was significantly higher in patients with minimal change than in controls [60]. However, inter-observer agreement on the minimal change is poor among endoscopists [52,61].
IEE could improve the detection of GERD. Several endoscopic features regarding GERD have been reported: 1) Increased number, dilatation and tortuosity of intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCLs), 2) Presence of microerosions, 3) Vascularity at the SCJ, 4) Presence of columnar island in the distal esophagus, and 5) Ridge-villous pattern above the SCJ characterized by the presence of uniform, longitudinally aligned ridges alternating with a villiform pattern [62]. Among these endoscopic findings, changes in IPCLs and microerosions, and increased vascularity at the SCJ were significant for detecting GERD. Sensitivity and specificity in changes of IPCLs were 60–80%, and those in microerosions and increased vascularity at the SCJ were 40–50% and 90–100%, respectively. A recent randomized, controlled trial showed that ridge-villous patterns above the SCJ on NBI demonstrated high specificity, correlated with AET, and improved with proton pump inhibitors in patients with NERD [63]. In addition, NBI can provide inter-observer and intra-observer consistency in grading RE [64,65]. I-scan could improve the identification of minimal changes in patients with NERD [66,67]. Sensitivity (51.35%), specificity (67.33%), positive predictive value (PPV, 36.54%) and negative predictive value (NPV, 79.06%) of minimal changes detected by i-scan in detecting GERD confirmed by the presence of RE or abnormal AET in 24 h esophageal impedance-pH monitoring [68]. FICE could provide higher sensitivity, NPV and accuracy than white light imaging (WLI) [69]: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of FICE were 77.8%, 83.3%, 93.3%, 55.6% and 79.2%, respectively. However, the inter-observer agreement was poor. LCI can improve the detection of minimal changes in patients with NERD [70] and the visibility of RE [71]. However, inter-observer agreements in diagnosing RE, including minimal changes in BLI and LCI, were not high [72].
Since BE is a premalignant condition, it is important to accurately recognize BE. It is known that the length of BE is associated with a risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma. In addition, it is also known that the length of BE is correlated with AET [73]. The Prague C & M criteria have been developed to standardize the endoscopic grading of BE [74]. The “C” value represents the circumferential extent, and the “M” value represents the maximal extent. The overall reliability coefficients for the assessment of the C & M extent of the endoscopic BE segment above the EGJ were 0.95 and 0.94, respectively. The rates of exact agreement for C & M values for pairwise comparisons of individual patient values were 53% and 38%, respectively. The overall reliability coefficient for endoscopic recognition of BE equal to, or more than, 1 cm was 0.72, whereas it was 0.22 for BE less than 1 cm. The reliability coefficients for recognizing the location of the EGJ and the diaphragmatic hiatus were 0.88 and 0.85, respectively. Although this study was performed by experts, the criteria were also validated in trainees [75]. The overall intraclass correlation coefficients for assessment of the C & M extent of the endoscopic BE segment above the GEJ were 0.94 and 0.96, respectively. The overall intraclass correlation coefficients for GEJ and diaphragmatic hiatus location recognition were 0.92 and 0.90, respectively. Moreover, duration of training did not affect the inter-observer agreement.
It should be recognized that there are different definitions of BE among different guidelines [76,77,78,79,80,81]. Some guidelines require the minimal length of columnar epithelium from the EGJ to be at least 1 cm [77,79,80,81], whereas others do not have any limitation on the length of the columnar epithelium [76,78]. Some guidelines require the presence of intestinal metaplasia for diagnosing BE [76,79,81], but others do not [77,78,80]. The definition of EGJ is also different among guidelines. The proximal end of gastric folds defines the EGJ in some guidelines [76,77,79,80,81]; however, the distal end of palisade vessels defines the EGJ in other guidelines [78]. Recently, an international consensus report on the anatomy, pathophysiology and clinical significance of the EGJ has been published [82]. The consensus report recommends that the length of BE and the presence of intestinal metaplasia should not be required for diagnosing BE. The distal end of palisade vessels is preferred for use as an endoscopic landmark of the EGJ.
Although it is not an aim of this review, it is important to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with BE. Since surveillance endoscopy could contribute to detecting early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma [83], surveillance endoscopy is recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) [84]. IEE is useful to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with BE. A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that target biopsies with chromoendoscopy, NBI, and endoscope-based confocal laser endomicroscopy met the thresholds of the ASGE preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations (PIVI) on imaging technology when experts in advanced imaging techniques use these techniques [85]. Therefore, the use of chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy, such as NBI, in addition to WLI has been recommended during the surveillance of BE [84].

2.4.2. Eosinophilic Esophagitis

EMDs are often seen in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) [28,86]. Interestingly, not only IEM but also hypercontractile esophagus can be observed. Esophageal motility is associated with disease severity in patients with EoE [87].
An assessment of eosinophil infiltration in the esophageal mucosa is necessary for diagnosing EoE [88,89]. Distinctive endoscopic findings, such as edema, rings, exudates, furrows and stricture are often observed in patients with EoE. It has been shown that the distribution of eosinophil infiltration in the esophageal mucosa is heterogenous, and more intense eosinophil infiltration could be observed at the sites of those distinctive endoscopic findings [90]. Therefore, biopsy from appropriate sites of the esophagus, as determined by careful endoscopic evaluation, is important for diagnosing EoE [91]. A meta-analysis revealed that there is substantial heterogeneity in the prevalence of EoE among studies [92]. In this meta-analysis, 17% of patients had endoscopically normal findings; however, the prevalence of normal endoscopic findings decreased when the analysis was limited to prospective studies. The overall sensitivity of determining endoscopic features was modest, ranging from 15% to 48%, whereas levels of specificity were greater, ranging from 90 to 95%. In addition, the accuracy of predicting positive values ranged from 51% to 73%, and that of predicting negative values ranged from 74% to 84%. Although the sensitivity of detecting endoscopic features was not sufficient, at least one abnormal endoscopic finding was detected during EGD in 93% of patients in the meta-analysis. Recently, the EREFS classification system has been proposed for grading these endoscopic findings [93]. The EREFS system identifies patients with EoE with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.934 [94]. Furthermore, the score decreases with treatment, and histologic responders have significantly lower scores than nonresponders. A caterpillar sign is defined as a fragile, protruding mucosal lesion sandwiched between longitudinal furrows. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the caterpillar sign for the diagnosis of EoE were 83.3%, 98.1%, 96.2% and 91.2%, respectively [95]. Furthermore, inter-observer agreement in the identification of the caterpillar sign was substantial (κ = 0.80). Large esophageal laceration due to fragility of the esophageal mucosa could occur, which is called “crêpe-paper” mucosa [96]. The specificity of determining endoscopic features of EoE is sufficient; however, the sensitivity of determining those features is not yet sufficient. Therefore, the diagnostic utility of determining endoscopic features is still unsatisfactory, and many biopsies from multiple sites in the esophagus have been required even if there are no typical endoscopic features of EoE.
The usefulness of IEE in diagnosing EoE has been reported. NBI with magnification is useful to evaluate esophageal mucosa in patients with EoE. Three endoscopic findings were observed: beige mucosa, dot-shaped IPCL and absent cyan vessels [97]. In addition, dilation, shortening and congestion of IPCL, and granular surface without erosion were also reported as endoscopic findings in EoE on NBI with magnification [98]. Recently, it has been reported that beige mucosa on NBI without magnification was also useful to detect EoE (Figure 7 and Figure 8) [99]. The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of beige mucosa in predicting EoE activity were 97.8%, 96.9% and 97.8%, respectively. LCI could be useful in the endoscopic diagnosis of EoE. For example, a case was reported in which typical endoscopic findings, such as furrows, rings, or exudates were not clearly observed; however, an edematous mucosa was detected as a yellowish area on LCI [100]. Furthermore, LCI could contribute to improving the detection of typical endoscopic findings [101]. Combined WLI and LCI had higher accuracy for diagnosing EoE endoscopically (0.85 vs. 0.70) than WLI alone. Inter-observer agreement on combined WLI and LCI was higher than that of WLI alone.

2.4.3. Systemic Sclerosis or Other Autoimmune Diseases

Esophageal motility abnormalities are often seen in patients with systemic sclerosis [102]. IEM and absent contractility are common EMDs; however, various EMDs, such as esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, or hypercontractile esophagus, could be seen [103]. Poor esophageal clearance due to esophageal motility abnormalities could lead to severe esophagitis [104] and could prolong AET even on high-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) [105].
Cameron et al. evaluated the motility of both the esophageal body and EGJ during EGD. They found that EGJ did not close in 12 out of 13 patients with systemic sclerosis [29]. In addition, lumen-occluding peristaltic contractions were identified in the middle esophagus in only 3 out of 13 patients. In recording a diagnostic sequence of EGJ opening followed by esophageal body contraction and subsequent EGJ closing, only 1 out of 13 patients with systemic sclerosis had normal esophageal motility in the study. Based on these results, they concluded that esophageal motility in patients with systemic sclerosis could be evaluated by EGD, and that assessment of esophageal motility during EGD may represent an adjunctive diagnostic test to manometry.
Esophageal motility abnormalities could be observed in patients with not only systemic sclerosis but also other autoimmune diseases such as mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) [106], Sjögren’s syndrome [107,108,109], systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) [110], rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [111] and idiopathic inflammatory myopathy [112]. Involvement of the esophagus is seen in up to 85% of patients with MCTD [113]. The pattern of esophageal motility abnormalities in patients with MCTD is similar to that in systemic sclerosis; however, dysfunction of the upper esophageal sphincter is often seen [106]. Decreased or absent contractility in the upper third of the esophagus is observed in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome [114], and the upper esophageal sphincter impairment in these patients may be more severe than that in other connective tissue diseases [115]. Decreased esophageal motility could be observed in up to 72% of patients with SLE [116]. Although esophageal motility abnormalities are mostly mild, absent contractility may be seen in 10–25% of patients with SLE [110,117]. Similar to the findings in Sjögren’s syndrome, esophageal motility in the upper third of the esophagus is often impaired in these patients [118]. Esophageal motility abnormalities could be seen in approximately 30% of patients with RA [119]. It has been reported that esophageal motility abnormalities are common in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, and both the proximal and distal esophagus could be involved [120]. In addition, the degree of distal esophageal involvement seems to correlate with the duration of myositis.

2.4.4. Systemic Amyloidosis

Various organs are involved in patients with systemic amyloidosis, and the esophagus could also be involved. Esophageal motility abnormalities can be seen in patients with systemic amyloidosis [121]. Esophageal dysmotility could be caused by myopathic and/or neuropathic involvements. A study, in which a total of 30 patients with systemic amyloidosis (24 patients with primary amyloidosis and 6 patients with secondary amyloidosis) were studied, showed that resting EGJ pressure was decreased in 12 patients with primary amyloidosis (50%) and 2 patients with secondary amyloidosis (33%). In addition, motility abnormalities in the esophageal body were seen in nine patients with primary amyloidosis (38%) and a patient with secondary amyloidosis (17%). There were no patients with abnormalities of the upper esophageal sphincter. Various esophageal motility abnormalities could be seen. A case of a patient with systemic amyloidosis who had hypertensive EGJ and impaired EGJ relaxation has been reported [122,123,124].
Amyloid deposition in the gastrointestinal tract is different between types of amyloidosis. Amyloid light-chain (AL) deposition is seen in the submucosal layer and/or muscularis propria in patients with AL amyloidosis, whereas serum amyloid A protein (AA) deposition is seen on the lamina propria mucosae and submucosal layer in patients with AA amyloidosis [125]. Therefore, endoscopic findings are more likely to be observed in patients with AA amyloidosis than those with AL amyloidosis. Endoscopic findings of systemic amyloidosis are not specific, and various endoscopic findings, such as fine granular appearance, mucosal friability, erosions, ulcerations, erythema, or polypoid protrusions could be observed. A report showed that 31 of 37 patients with systemic amyloidosis (8 AL amyloidosis and 29 AA amyloidosis patients) had normal endoscopic findings on EGD.

2.4.5. Von Recklinghausen’s Neurofibromatosis

Neurofibroma is a benign neoplasia that consists of neural and connective tissues. The prevalence of neurofibroma is estimated to represent approximately 0.9% of esophageal submucosal tumors [126]. Visceral organ neurofibromas are associated with genetic disorders such as Von Recklinghausen’s disease [127]. Although gastrointestinal involvement can be found in the small bowel or colon, the esophagus could be involved in patients with Von Recklinghausen’s disease. It is known that Von Recklinghausen’s neurofibromatosis could cause EMDs, such as achalasia. Hypoganglionosis was seen in a patient with Von Recklinghausen’s disease who presented achalasia [128]. It is hypothesized that hypoganglionosis may have resulted from transsynaptic degeneration or from abnormal embryological development of neural crest cells concluding that disturbance of gastrointestinal motility may occur in neurofibromatosis, but the underlying mechanism is not clear. A case has also been reported in which there were multiple neurofibromas at the EGJ, which could cause achalasia [129]. Thus, if symptoms related to EMDs, such as dysphagia, are reported in patients with Von Recklinghausen’s neurofibromatosis, EGD should be performed to detect EMDs as well as esophageal submucosal tumors.

3. Conclusions

Abnormal endoscopic findings could be observed during EGD in patients with EMDs. Although no report has been published that assesses the potential usefulness of IEE in the endoscopic diagnosis of EMDs, IEE can be used to detect disorders that can be associated with abnormal esophageal motility.

Author Contributions

S.K. drafted the original manuscript. H.H. and T.U. reviewed the manuscript draft and revised it. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI for Early-Career Scientists [JP18K15772 to SK].

Institutional Review Board Statement

This review article was reported based on a study which was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gunma University Hospital (HS2017-273).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained with an opt-out method.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The English language was reviewed by a native English speaker.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest in the publication of this article.

References

  1. Patel, D.A.; Yadlapati, R.; Vaezi, M.F. Esophageal Motility Disorders: Current Approach to Diagnostics and Therapeutics. Gastroenterology 2022, 162, 1617–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yadlapati, R.; Kahrilas, P.J.; Fox, M.R.; Bredenoord, A.J.; Prakash Gyawali, C.; Roman, S.; Babaei, A.; Mittal, R.K.; Rommel, N.; Savarino, E.; et al. Esophageal motility disorders on high-resolution manometry: Chicago classification version 4.0((c)). Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2021, 33, e14058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Muto, M.; Minashi, K.; Yano, T.; Saito, Y.; Oda, I.; Nonaka, S.; Omori, T.; Sugiura, H.; Goda, K.; Kaise, M.; et al. Early detection of superficial squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck region and esophagus by narrow band imaging: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 1566–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Katada, C.; Tanabe, S.; Koizumi, W.; Higuchi, K.; Sasaki, T.; Azuma, M.; Katada, N.; Masaki, T.; Nakayama, M.; Okamoto, M.; et al. Narrow band imaging for detecting superficial squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Endoscopy 2010, 42, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Goda, K.; Tajiri, H.; Ikegami, M.; Yoshida, Y.; Yoshimura, N.; Kato, M.; Sumiyama, K.; Imazu, H.; Matsuda, K.; Kaise, M.; et al. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for predicting the invasion depth of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Dis. Esophagus 2009, 22, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kawahara, Y.; Uedo, N.; Fujishiro, M.; Goda, K.; Hirasawa, D.; Lee, J.H.; Miyahara, R.; Morita, Y.; Singh, R.; Takeuchi, M.; et al. The usefulness of NBI magnification on diagnosis of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Dig. Endosc. 2011, 23 (Suppl. S1), 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Takahashi, A.; Oyama, T. Barrett’s esophageal adenocarcinoma diagnosed by narrow-band imaging magnifying endoscopy. Dig. Endosc. 2013, 25 (Suppl. S2), 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Arantes, V.; Albuquerque, W.; Salles, J.M.; Freitas Dias, C.A.; Alberti, L.R.; Kahaleh, M.; Ferrari, T.C.; Coelho, L.G. Effectiveness of unsedated transnasal endoscopy with white-light, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, and lugol staining for esophageal cancer screening in high-risk patients. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2013, 47, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, Y.; Yangjin, C.; Shi, Y.; Wen, Y.; Jin, Z.; Cui, R.; Zhang, H.; Ding, S. The Significance of a Pale Area Via Flexible Spectral Imaging Color Enhancement in the Diagnosis of Esophageal Precancerous Lesions and Early-stage Squamous Cancer. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2019, 53, e400–e404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ueda, T.; Dohi, O.; Naito, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Azuma, Y.; Ishida, T.; Matsumura, S.; Kitae, H.; Takayama, S.; Mizuno, N.; et al. Diagnostic performance of magnifying blue laser imaging versus magnifying narrow-band imaging for identifying the depth of invasion of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Dis. Esophagus 2021, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Nakamura, K.; Urabe, Y.; Oka, S.; Nagasaki, N.; Yorita, N.; Hata, K.; Masuda, K.; Kurihara, M.; Kotachi, T.; Boda, T.; et al. Usefulness of linked color imaging in the early detection of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Esophagus 2021, 18, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kodashima, S.; Fujishiro, M. Novel image-enhanced endoscopy with i-scan technology. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 16, 1043–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Inoue, H.; Minami, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Sato, Y.; Kaga, M.; Suzuki, M.; Satodate, H.; Odaka, N.; Itoh, H.; Kudo, S. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for esophageal achalasia. Endoscopy 2010, 42, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Inoue, H.; Sato, H.; Ikeda, H.; Onimaru, M.; Sato, C.; Minami, H.; Yokomichi, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Grimes, K.L.; Kudo, S.E. Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy: A Series of 500 Patients. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015, 221, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bechara, R.; Ikeda, H.; Inoue, H. Peroral endoscopic myotomy: An evolving treatment for achalasia. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2015, 12, 410–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Onimaru, M.; Inoue, H.; Fujiyoshi, Y.; Abad, M.R.A.; Nishikawa, Y.; Toshimori, A.; Shimamura, Y.; Tanabe, M.; Sumi, K.; Ikeda, H. Long-term clinical results of per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia: First report of more than 10-year patient experience as assessed with a questionnaire-based survey. Endosc. Int. Open 2021, 9, E409–E416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Weusten, B.; Barret, M.; Bredenoord, A.J.; Familiari, P.; Gonzalez, J.M.; van Hooft, J.E.; Ishaq, S.; Lorenzo-Zuniga, V.; Louis, H.; van Meer, S.; et al. Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders—Part 1: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020, 52, 498–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Pandolfino, J.E.; Gawron, A.J. Achalasia: A systematic review. JAMA 2015, 313, 1841–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Japan Esophageal, S. Descriptive Rules for Achalasia of the Esophagus, June 2012: 4th Edition. Esophagus 2017, 14, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iwakiri, K.; Hoshihara, Y.; Kawami, N.; Sano, H.; Tanaka, Y.; Umezawa, M.; Kotoyori, M.; Nomura, T.; Miyashita, M.; Sakamoto, C. The appearance of rosette-like esophageal folds (“esophageal rosette”) in the lower esophagus after a deep inspiration is a characteristic endoscopic finding of primary achalasia. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 45, 422–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hoshikawa, Y.; Hoshino, S.; Kawami, N.; Tanabe, T.; Hanada, Y.; Takenouchi, N.; Goto, O.; Kaise, M.; Iwakiri, K. Possible new endoscopic finding in patients with achalasia: “Gingko leaf sign”. Esophagus 2020, 17, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gomi, K.; Inoue, H.; Ikeda, H.; Bechara, R.; Sato, C.; Ito, H.; Onimaru, M.; Kitamura, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Nakamura, J.; et al. New endoscopic classification of the cardiac orifice in esophageal achalasia: Champagne glass sign. Dig. Endosc. 2016, 28, 645–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Minami, H.; Isomoto, H.; Miuma, S.; Kobayashi, Y.; Yamaguchi, N.; Urabe, S.; Matsushima, K.; Akazawa, Y.; Ohnita, K.; Takeshima, F.; et al. New endoscopic indicator of esophageal achalasia: “pinstripe pattern”. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0101833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shiwaku, H.; Yamashita, K.; Ohmiya, T.; Nimura, S.; Shiwaku, Y.; Inoue, H.; Hasegawa, S. New endoscopic finding of esophageal achalasia with ST Hood short type: Corona appearance. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Misra, S.P.; Dwivedi, M.; Gupta, S.C. Endoscopic diagnosis of corkscrew esophagus. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2001, 53, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cammarota, G.; Certo, M. Images in clinical medicine. Corkscrew esophagus. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 352, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kato, T.; Naiki, T.; Araki, H.; Nagaki, M.; Moriwaki, H. Diffuse esophageal spasm. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2004, 60, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hosaka, H.; Kawami, N.; Manabe, N.; Kuribayashi, S.; Sato, H.; Funaki, Y.; Ayaki, M.; Hara, K.; Ueda, C.; Matsumura, T.; et al. Clinical presentation and therapeutic outcome of patients with jackhammer esophagus-a multicenter cohort study in Japan. Esophagus 2022, 19, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cameron, A.J.; Malcolm, A.; Prather, C.M.; Phillips, S.F. Videoendoscopic diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1999, 49, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Matsubara, M.; Manabe, N.; Ayaki, M.; Nakamura, J.; Murao, T.; Fujita, M.; Kuinose, M.; Yamatsuji, T.; Naomoto, Y.; Haruma, K. Clinical significance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with esophageal motility disorders. Dig. Endosc. 2021, 33, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tobin, R.W. Esophageal rings, webs, and diverticula. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 1998, 27, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nutter, K.M.; Ball, O.G. Esophageal diverticula: Current classification and important complications. J. Miss. State Med. Assoc. 2004, 45, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Costantini, M.; Zaninotto, G.; Rizzetto, C.; Narne, S.; Ancona, E. Oesophageal diverticula. Best Pr. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2004, 18, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sato, H.; Takeuchi, M.; Takahashi, K.; Mizuno, K.I.; Furukawa, K.; Sato, A.; Nakajima, N.; Yokoyama, J.; Terai, S. Esophageal Diverticulum—Indications and Efficacy of Therapeutic Endoscopy. Intern. Med. 2022, 61, 943–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Dua, K.S.; Stewart, E.; Arndorfer, R.; Shaker, R. Esophageal intramural pseudodiverticulosis associated with achalasia. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1996, 91, 1859–1860. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohamed, A.A.; Lu, X.L.; Mounmin, F.A. Diagnosis and Treatment of Esophageal Candidiasis: Current Updates. Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 2019, 3585136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Howard, P.J.; Maher, L.; Pryde, A.; Cameron, E.W.; Heading, R.C. Five year prospective study of the incidence, clinical features, and diagnosis of achalasia in Edinburgh. Gut 1992, 33, 1011–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abe, H.; Tanaka, S.; Kawara, F.; Toyonaga, T.; Sakaguchi, H.; Nakai, T.; Ikezawa, N.; Ueda, C.; Urakami, S.; Kodama, Y. Esophageal motility disorders missed during endoscopy. Esophagus 2022, 19, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fouad, Y.M.; Katz, P.O.; Hatlebakk, J.G.; Castell, D.O. Ineffective esophageal motility: The most common motility abnormality in patients with GERD-associated respiratory symptoms. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1999, 94, 1464–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Simren, M.; Silny, J.; Holloway, R.; Tack, J.; Janssens, J.; Sifrim, D. Relevance of ineffective oesophageal motility during oesophageal acid clearance. Gut 2003, 52, 784–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, J.; Anggiansah, A.; Anggiansah, R.; Young, A.; Wong, T.; Fox, M. Effects of age on the gastroesophageal junction, esophageal motility, and reflux disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007, 5, 1392–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Savarino, E.; Gemignani, L.; Pohl, D.; Zentilin, P.; Dulbecco, P.; Assandri, L.; Marabotto, E.; Bonfanti, D.; Inferrera, S.; Fazio, V.; et al. Oesophageal motility and bolus transit abnormalities increase in parallel with the severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011, 34, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Porter, R.F.; Kumar, N.; Drapekin, J.E.; Gyawali, C.P. Fragmented esophageal smooth muscle contraction segments on high resolution manometry: A marker of esophageal hypomotility. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2012, 24, 763–768.e353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Iascone, C.; DeMeester, T.R.; Little, A.G.; Skinner, D.B. Barrett’s esophagus. Functional assessment, proposed pathogenesis, and surgical therapy. Arch. Surg. 1983, 118, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lidums, I.; Holloway, R. Motility abnormalities in the columnar-lined esophagus. Gastroenterol. Clin. N. Am. 1997, 26, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Chow, W.H.; Finkle, W.D.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Frankl, H.; Ziel, H.K.; Fraumeni, J.F., Jr. The relation of gastroesophageal reflux disease and its treatment to adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and gastric cardia. JAMA 1995, 274, 474–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Iwakiri, K.; Sugiura, T.; Hayashi, Y.; Kotoyori, M.; Kawakami, A.; Makino, H.; Nomura, T.; Miyashita, M.; Takubo, K.; Sakamoto, C. Esophageal motility in Japanese patients with Barrett’s esophagus. J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 38, 1036–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sanagapalli, S.; Emmanuel, A.; Leong, R.; Kerr, S.; Lovat, L.; Haidry, R.; Banks, M.; Graham, D.; Raeburn, A.; Zarate-Lopez, N.; et al. Impaired motility in Barrett’s esophagus: A study using high-resolution manometry with physiologic challenge. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2018, 30, e13330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Iwakiri, K.; Hayashi, Y.; Kotoyori, M.; Tanaka, Y.; Kawami, N.; Sano, H.; Takubo, K.; Sakamoto, C.; Holloway, R.H. Defective triggering of secondary peristalsis in patients with non-erosive reflux disease. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007, 22, 2208–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Martinucci, I.; Savarino, E.V.; Pandolfino, J.E.; Russo, S.; Bellini, M.; Tolone, S.; Tutuian, R.; Roman, S.; Furnari, M.; Frazzoni, M.; et al. Vigor of peristalsis during multiple rapid swallows is inversely correlated with acid exposure time in patients with NERD. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2016, 28, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ribolsi, M.; Biasutto, D.; Giordano, A.; Balestrieri, P.; Cicala, M. High-resolution Manometry Findings During Solid Swallows Correlate With Delayed Reflux Clearance and Acid Exposure Time in Non-erosive Reflux Disease Patients. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2019, 25, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Armstrong, D.; Bennett, J.R.; Blum, A.L.; Dent, J.; De Dombal, F.T.; Galmiche, J.P.; Lundell, L.; Margulies, M.; Richter, J.E.; Spechler, S.J.; et al. The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: A progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 1996, 111, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lundell, L.R.; Dent, J.; Bennett, J.R.; Blum, A.L.; Armstrong, D.; Galmiche, J.P.; Johnson, F.; Hongo, M.; Richter, J.E.; Spechler, S.J.; et al. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: Clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999, 45, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kusano, M.; Ino, K.; Yamada, T.; Kawamura, O.; Toki, M.; Ohwada, T.; Kikuchi, K.; Shirota, T.; Kimura, M.; Miyazaki, M.; et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variation in endoscopic assessment of GERD using the “Los Angeles” classification. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1999, 49, 700–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pandolfino, J.E.; Vakil, N.B.; Kahrilas, P.J. Comparison of inter- and intraobserver consistency for grading of esophagitis by expert and trainee endoscopists. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2002, 56, 639–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Hoshihara, Y. Diagnosis of GERD (in Japanese). Clin. Gastroenterol. (Rinsho Shokaki Naika) 1996, 11, 1563–1568. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hoshihara, Y. Endoscopic findings of GERD. Nippon Rinsho 2004, 62, 1459–1464. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Hongo, M. Minimal changes in reflux esophagitis: Red ones and white ones. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 41, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kiesslich, R.; Kanzler, S.; Vieth, M.; Moehler, M.; Neidig, J.; Thanka Nadar, B.J.; Schilling, D.; Burg, J.; Nafe, B.; Neurath, M.F.; et al. Minimal change esophagitis: Prospective comparison of endoscopic and histological markers between patients with non-erosive reflux disease and normal controls using magnifying endoscopy. Dig. Dis. 2004, 22, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kusano, M. Review article: Diagnosis and investigation of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Japanese patients. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2004, 20 (Suppl. S8), 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Miwa, H.; Yokoyama, T.; Hori, K.; Sakagami, T.; Oshima, T.; Tomita, T.; Fujiwara, Y.; Saita, H.; Itou, T.; Ogawa, H.; et al. Interobserver agreement in endoscopic evaluation of reflux esophagitis using a modified Los Angeles classification incorporating grades N and M: A validation study in a cohort of Japanese endoscopists. Dis. Esophagus 2008, 21, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Sharma, P.; Wani, S.; Bansal, A.; Hall, S.; Puli, S.; Mathur, S.; Rastogi, A. A feasibility trial of narrow band imaging endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2007, 133, 454–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Desai, M.; Srinivasan, S.; Sundaram, S.; Dasari, C.; Andraws, N.; Mathur, S.; Higbee, A.; Miller, J.; Beg, S.; Fateen, W.; et al. Narrow-band imaging for the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease: An international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2022, 96, 457–466.e453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lee, Y.C.; Lin, J.T.; Chiu, H.M.; Liao, W.C.; Chen, C.C.; Tu, C.H.; Tai, C.M.; Chiang, T.H.; Chiu, Y.H.; Wu, M.S.; et al. Intraobserver and interobserver consistency for grading esophagitis with narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2007, 66, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fock, K.M.; Teo, E.K.; Ang, T.L.; Tan, J.Y.; Law, N.M. The utility of narrow band imaging in improving the endoscopic diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009, 7, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kim, M.S.; Choi, S.R.; Roh, M.H.; Lee, J.H.; Jang, J.S.; Kim, B.G.; Kim, S.O.; Han, J.S.; Hsing, C.T. Efficacy of I-scan endoscopy in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease with minimal change. Clin. Endosc. 2011, 44, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rey, J.W.; Deris, N.; Marquardt, J.U.; Thomaidis, T.; Moehler, M.; Kittner, J.M.; Nguyen-Tat, M.; Dumcke, S.; Tresch, A.; Biesterfeld, S.; et al. High-definition endoscopy with iScan and Lugol’s solution for the detection of inflammation in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: Histologic evaluation in comparison with a control group. Dis. Esophagus 2016, 29, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Netinatsunton, N.; Sottisuporn, J.; Attasaranya, S.; Witeerungrot, T.; Chamroonkul, N.; Jongboonyanuparp, T.; Geater, A.; Ovartlarnporn, B. i-Scan detection of minimal change esophagitis in dyspeptic patients with or without Gastroesophageal Reflux disease. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016, 16, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chaiteerakij, R.; Geratikornsupuk, N.; Tangmankongworakoon, N.; Gonlachanvit, S.; Treeprasertsuk, S.; Rerknimitr, R.; Kullavanijaya, P. Efficacy if intelligent chromo endoscopy for detection of minial mucosal breaks in patients with typical reflux symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2008, 67, AB86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Deng, P.; Min, M.; Dong, T.; Bi, Y.; Tang, A.; Liu, Y. Linked color imaging improves detection of minimal change esophagitis in non-erosive reflux esophagitis patients. Endosc. Int. Open 2018, 6, E1177–E1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Takeda, T.; Asaoka, D.; Abe, D.; Suzuki, M.; Nakagawa, Y.; Sasaki, H.; Inami, Y.; Ikemura, M.; Utsunomiya, H.; Oki, S.; et al. Linked color imaging improves visibility of reflux esophagitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020, 20, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, S.P.; Kae, S.H.; Jang, H.J.; Koh, D.H.; Jung, E.S. Inter-observer variability of experts and trainees for the diagnosis of reflux esophagitis: Comparison of linked color imaging, blue laser imaging, and white light imaging. J. Dig. Dis. 2021, 22, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Fass, R.; Hell, R.W.; Garewal, H.S.; Martinez, P.; Pulliam, G.; Wendel, C.; Sampliner, R.E. Correlation of oesophageal acid exposure with Barrett’s oesophagus length. Gut 2001, 48, 310–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sharma, P.; Dent, J.; Armstrong, D.; Bergman, J.J.; Gossner, L.; Hoshihara, Y.; Jankowski, J.A.; Junghard, O.; Lundell, L.; Tytgat, G.N.; et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: The Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 2006, 131, 1392–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Vahabzadeh, B.; Seetharam, A.B.; Cook, M.B.; Wani, S.; Rastogi, A.; Bansal, A.; Early, D.S.; Sharma, P. Validation of the Prague C & M criteria for the endoscopic grading of Barrett’s esophagus by gastroenterology trainees: A multicenter study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012, 75, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. American Gastroenterological, A.; Spechler, S.J.; Sharma, P.; Souza, R.F.; Inadomi, J.M.; Shaheen, N.J. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011, 140, 1084–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fitzgerald, R.C.; di Pietro, M.; Ragunath, K.; Ang, Y.; Kang, J.Y.; Watson, P.; Trudgill, N.; Patel, P.; Kaye, P.V.; Sanders, S.; et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014, 63, 7–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kuwano, H.; Nishimura, Y.; Oyama, T.; Kato, H.; Kitagawa, Y.; Kusano, M.; Shimada, H.; Takiuchi, H.; Toh, Y.; Doki, Y.; et al. Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Carcinoma of the Esophagus April 2012 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society. Esophagus 2015, 12, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shaheen, N.J.; Falk, G.W.; Iyer, P.G.; Gerson, L.B. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 111, 30–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Fock, K.M.; Talley, N.; Goh, K.L.; Sugano, K.; Katelaris, P.; Holtmann, G.; Pandolfino, J.E.; Sharma, P.; Ang, T.L.; Hongo, M.; et al. Asia-Pacific consensus on the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: An update focusing on refractory reflux disease and Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2016, 65, 1402–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Weusten, B.; Bisschops, R.; Coron, E.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; Dumonceau, J.M.; Esteban, J.M.; Hassan, C.; Pech, O.; Repici, A.; Bergman, J.; et al. Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2017, 49, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sugano, K.; Spechler, S.J.; El-Omar, E.M.; McColl, K.E.L.; Takubo, K.; Gotoda, T.; Fujishiro, M.; Iijima, K.; Inoue, H.; Kawai, T.; et al. Kyoto international consensus report on anatomy, pathophysiology and clinical significance of the gastro-oesophageal junction. Gut 2022, 71, 1488–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Codipilly, D.C.; Chandar, A.K.; Singh, S.; Wani, S.; Shaheen, N.J.; Inadomi, J.M.; Chak, A.; Iyer, P.G. The Effect of Endoscopic Surveillance in Patients With Barrett’s Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 2068–2086.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Asge Standards Of Practice, C.; Qumseya, B.; Sultan, S.; Bain, P.; Jamil, L.; Jacobson, B.; Anandasabapathy, S.; Agrawal, D.; Buxbaum, J.L.; Fishman, D.S.; et al. ASGE guideline on screening and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2019, 90, 335–359.e332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Committee, A.T.; Thosani, N.; Abu Dayyeh, B.K.; Sharma, P.; Aslanian, H.R.; Enestvedt, B.K.; Komanduri, S.; Manfredi, M.; Navaneethan, U.; Maple, J.T.; et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations thresholds for adopting real-time imaging-assisted endoscopic targeted biopsy during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2016, 83, 684–698.e687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Roman, S.; Hirano, I.; Kwiatek, M.A.; Gonsalves, N.; Chen, J.; Kahrilas, P.J.; Pandolfino, J.E. Manometric features of eosinophilic esophagitis in esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2011, 23, e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Carlson, D.A.; Shehata, C.; Gonsalves, N.; Hirano, I.; Peterson, S.; Prescott, J.; Farina, D.A.; Schauer, J.M.; Kou, W.; Kahrilas, P.J.; et al. Esophageal Dysmotility Is Associated With Disease Severity in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 20, 1719–1728.e1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lucendo, A.J.; Molina-Infante, J.; Arias, A.; von Arnim, U.; Bredenoord, A.J.; Bussmann, C.; Amil Dias, J.; Bove, M.; Gonzalez-Cervera, J.; Larsson, H.; et al. Guidelines on eosinophilic esophagitis: Evidence-based statements and recommendations for diagnosis and management in children and adults. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2017, 5, 335–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Hirano, I.; Chan, E.S.; Rank, M.A.; Sharaf, R.N.; Stollman, N.H.; Stukus, D.R.; Wang, K.; Greenhawt, M.; Falck-Ytter, Y.T.; Committee, A.G.A.I.C.G.; et al. AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 1776–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Salek, J.; Clayton, F.; Vinson, L.; Saffari, H.; Pease, L.F., 3rd; Boynton, K.; Fang, J.; Cox, K.; Peterson, K.A. Endoscopic appearance and location dictate diagnostic yield of biopsies in eosinophilic oesophagitis. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 41, 1288–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Adachi, K.; Mishiro, T.; Tanaka, S.; Kinoshita, Y. Suitable biopsy site for detection of esophageal eosinophilia in eosinophilic esophagitis suspected cases. Dig. Endosc. 2016, 28, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kim, H.P.; Vance, R.B.; Shaheen, N.J.; Dellon, E.S. The prevalence and diagnostic utility of endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis: A meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012, 10, 988–996.e985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Hirano, I.; Moy, N.; Heckman, M.G.; Thomas, C.S.; Gonsalves, N.; Achem, S.R. Endoscopic assessment of the oesophageal features of eosinophilic oesophagitis: Validation of a novel classification and grading system. Gut 2013, 62, 489–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dellon, E.S.; Cotton, C.C.; Gebhart, J.H.; Higgins, L.L.; Beitia, R.; Woosley, J.T.; Shaheen, N.J. Accuracy of the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score in Diagnosis and Determining Response to Treatment. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 14, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ayaki, M.; Manabe, N.; Nakamura, J.; Fujita, M.; Kamada, T.; Imamura, K.; Inoue, K.; Haruma, K. The “caterpillar sign”: A novel endoscopic indicator of eosinophilic esophagitis. Esophagus 2021, 18, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Straumann, A.; Rossi, L.; Simon, H.U.; Heer, P.; Spichtin, H.P.; Beglinger, C. Fragility of the esophageal mucosa: A pathognomonic endoscopic sign of primary eosinophilic esophagitis? Gastrointest. Endosc. 2003, 57, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ichiya, T.; Tanaka, K.; Rubio, C.A.; Hammar, U.; Schmidt, P.T. Evaluation of narrow-band imaging signs in eosinophilic and lymphocytic esophagitis. Endoscopy 2017, 49, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yasuda, T.; Yagi, N.; Omatsu, T.; Yasuda, Y.; Obora, A.; Kojima, T. Magnifying Endoscopic Characteristics in Eosinophilic Esophagitis Patients. Tech. Innov. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2021, 23, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ayaki, M.; Manabe, N.; Tomida, A.; Tada, N.; Matsunaga, T.; Murota, M.; Fujita, M.; Katsumata, R.; Kobara, H.; Masaki, T.; et al. Beige mucosa observable under narrow-band imaging indicates the active sites of eosinophilic esophagitis. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022, 37, 891–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Abe, Y.; Sasaki, Y.; Kon, T.; Ueno, Y. Linked Color Imaging of Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Intern. Med. 2020, 59, 1573–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Abe, Y.; Sasaki, Y.; Yagi, M.; Mizumoto, N.; Onozato, Y.; Kon, T.; Shoji, M.; Sakuta, K.; Sakai, T.; Umehara, M.; et al. Linked color imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of eosinophilic esophagitis. DEN Open 2023, 3, e146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Crowell, M.D.; Umar, S.B.; Griffing, W.L.; DiBaise, J.K.; Lacy, B.E.; Vela, M.F. Esophageal Motor Abnormalities in Patients With Scleroderma: Heterogeneity, Risk Factors, and Effects on Quality of Life. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, 207–213.e201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kuribayashi, S.; Motegi, S.I.; Hara, K.; Shimoyama, Y.; Hosaka, H.; Sekiguchi, A.; Yamaguchi, K.; Kawamura, O.; Hisada, T.; Ishikawa, O.; et al. Relationship between esophageal motility abnormalities and skin or lung involvements in patients with systemic sclerosis. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 54, 950–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Murphy, J.R.; McNally, P.; Peller, P.; Shay, S.S. Prolonged clearance is the primary abnormal reflux parameter in patients with progressive systemic sclerosis and esophagitis. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1992, 37, 833–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Stern, E.K.; Carlson, D.A.; Falmagne, S.; Hoffmann, A.D.; Carns, M.; Pandolfino, J.E.; Hinchcliff, M.; Brenner, D.M. Abnormal esophageal acid exposure on high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is common in systemic sclerosis patients. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2018, 30, e13247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Marshall, J.B.; Kretschmar, J.M.; Gerhardt, D.C.; Winship, D.H.; Winn, D.; Treadwell, E.L.; Sharp, G.C. Gastrointestinal manifestations of mixed connective tissue disease. Gastroenterology 1990, 98, 1232–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Tsianos, E.B.; Chiras, C.D.; Drosos, A.A.; Moutsopoulos, H.M. Oesophageal dysfunction in patients with primary Sjogren’s syndrome. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1985, 44, 610–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Anselmino, M.; Zaninotto, G.; Costantini, M.; Ostuni, P.; Ianniello, A.; Boccu, C.; Doria, A.; Todesco, S.; Ancona, E. Esophageal motor function in primary Sjogren’s syndrome: Correlation with dysphagia and xerostomia. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1997, 42, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Volter, F.; Fain, O.; Mathieu, E.; Thomas, M. Esophageal function and Sjogren’s syndrome. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2004, 49, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Gutierrez, F.; Valenzuela, J.E.; Ehresmann, G.R.; Quismorio, F.P.; Kitridou, R.C. Esophageal dysfunction in patients with mixed connective tissue diseases and systemic lupus erythematosus. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1982, 27, 592–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Bassotti, G.; Gaburri, M.; Biscarini, L.; Baratta, E.; Pelli, M.A.; Del Favero, A.; Morelli, A. Oesophageal motor activity in rheumatoid arthritis: A clinical and manometric study. Digestion 1988, 39, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Eshraghi, N.; Farahmand, M.; Maerz, L.L.; Campbell, S.M.; Deveney, C.W.; Sheppard, B.C. Adult-onset dermatomyositis with severe gastrointestinal manifestations: Case report and review of the literature. Surgery 1998, 123, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Doria, A.; Bonavina, L.; Anselmino, M.; Ruffatti, A.; Favaretto, M.; Gambari, P.; Peracchia, A.; Todesco, S. Esophageal involvement in mixed connective tissue disease. J. Rheumatol. 1991, 18, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  114. Ramirez-Mata, M.; Pena Ancira, F.F.; Alarcon-Segovia, D. Abnormal esophageal motility in primary Sjogren’s syndrome. J. Rheumatol. 1976, 3, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  115. Lapadula, G.; Muolo, P.; Semeraro, F.; Covelli, M.; Brindicci, D.; Cuccorese, G.; Francavilla, A.; Pipitone, V. Esophageal motility disorders in the rheumatic diseases: A review of 150 patients. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 1994, 12, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  116. Sultan, S.M.; Ioannou, Y.; Isenberg, D.A. A review of gastrointestinal manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology 1999, 38, 917–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Stevens, M.B.; Hookman, P.; Siegel, C.I.; Esterly, J.R.; Shulman, L.E.; Hendrix, T.R. Aperistalsis of the Esophagus in Patients with Connective-Tissue Disorders and Raynaud’s Phenomenon. N. Engl. J. Med. 1964, 270, 1218–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ramirez-Mata, M.; Reyes, P.A.; Alarcon-Segovia, D.; Garza, R. Esophageal motility in systemic lupus erythematosus. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 1974, 19, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Sheehan, N.J. Dysphagia and other manifestations of oesophageal involvement in the musculoskeletal diseases. Rheumatology 2008, 47, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. de Merieux, P.; Verity, M.A.; Clements, P.J.; Paulus, H.E. Esophageal abnormalities and dysphagia in polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum. 1983, 26, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rubinow, A.; Burakoff, R.; Cohen, A.S.; Harris, L.D. Esophageal manometry in systemic amyloidosis. A study of 30 patients. Am. J. Med. 1983, 75, 951–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Costigan, D.J.; Clouse, R.E. Achalasia-like esophagus from amyloidosis. Successful treatment with pneumatic bag dilatation. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1983, 28, 763–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Lefkowitz, J.R.; Brand, D.L.; Schuffler, M.D.; Brugge, W.R. Amyloidosis mimics achalasia’s effect on lower esophageal sphincter. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1989, 34, 630–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Suris, X.; Moya, F.; Panes, J.; del Olmo, J.A.; Sole, M.; Munoz-Gomez, J. Achalasia of the esophagus in secondary amyloidosis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1993, 88, 1959–1960. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  125. Iida, T.; Yamano, H.; Nakase, H. Systemic amyloidosis with gastrointestinal involvement: Diagnosis from endoscopic and histological views. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 33, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nishikawa, K.; Omura, N.; Yuda, M.; Tanaka, Y.; Matsumoto, A.; Tanishima, Y.; Ishibashi, Y.; Yanaga, K.; Ikegami, M. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for localized neurofibroma of the esophagus: Case report and review of the literature. Int. Surg. 2013, 98, 461–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Samat, S.H.; Onyemkpa, C.; Torabi, M.; Oyasiji, T. Understanding esophageal neurofibroma: A case series and systematic review. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2020, 76, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Foster, P.N.; Stewart, M.; Lowe, J.S.; Atkinson, M. Achalasia like disorder of the oesophagus in von Recklinghausen’s neurofibromatosis. Gut 1987, 28, 1522–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Sica, G.S.; Sujendran, V.; Warren, B.; Maynard, N.D. Neurofibromatosis of the esophagus. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2006, 81, 1138–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 13 00695 g001 550
Figure 1. A case in which esophageal rosette was observed. Rosette-like appearance was observed at the esophago-gastric junction during deep inspiration.
Figure 1. A case in which esophageal rosette was observed. Rosette-like appearance was observed at the esophago-gastric junction during deep inspiration.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g001
Diagnostics 13 00695 g002 550
Figure 2. A case in which Gingko leaf sign was observed. Gingko leaf-shaped morphology was observed at the esophago-gastric junction during the end of deep inspiration.
Figure 2. A case in which Gingko leaf sign was observed. Gingko leaf-shaped morphology was observed at the esophago-gastric junction during the end of deep inspiration.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g002
Diagnostics 13 00695 g003 550
Figure 3. A case with achalasia in which Champagne glass sign was observed. Gingko leaf sign was observed at the esophago-gastric junction during deep inspiration.
Figure 3. A case with achalasia in which Champagne glass sign was observed. Gingko leaf sign was observed at the esophago-gastric junction during deep inspiration.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g003
Diagnostics 13 00695 g004 550
Figure 4. Although the squamocolumnar junction could not be observed even during the deep inspiration in the anterograde view from the esophagus (Figure 3), it could be observed in the retroflex view from the stomach.
Figure 4. Although the squamocolumnar junction could not be observed even during the deep inspiration in the anterograde view from the esophagus (Figure 3), it could be observed in the retroflex view from the stomach.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g004
Diagnostics 13 00695 g005 550
Figure 5. A case with achalasia in which pinstripe pattern was observed. Longitudinal superficial wrinkles of the esophageal mucosa were observed.
Figure 5. A case with achalasia in which pinstripe pattern was observed. Longitudinal superficial wrinkles of the esophageal mucosa were observed.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g005
Diagnostics 13 00695 g006 550
Figure 6. A case with hypercontractile esophagus in which corkscrew esophagus was observed.
Figure 6. A case with hypercontractile esophagus in which corkscrew esophagus was observed.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g006
Diagnostics 13 00695 g007 550
Figure 7. A case in which furrows were seen focally. Since furrows were seen focally (red circles), these findings might not be detected in white light imaging.
Figure 7. A case in which furrows were seen focally. Since furrows were seen focally (red circles), these findings might not be detected in white light imaging.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g007
Diagnostics 13 00695 g008 550
Figure 8. Beige mucosa was seen in narrow-band imaging. Beige mucosa could be observed in narrow-band imaging (red circles), and this finding made the detection of eosinophilic esophagitis easier than furrows in white light imaging in this case.
Figure 8. Beige mucosa was seen in narrow-band imaging. Beige mucosa could be observed in narrow-band imaging (red circles), and this finding made the detection of eosinophilic esophagitis easier than furrows in white light imaging in this case.
Diagnostics 13 00695 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuribayashi, S.; Hosaka, H.; Uraoka, T. Usefulness of Endoscopy for the Detection and Diagnosis of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders and Diseases Relating to Abnormal Esophageal Motility. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 695. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040695

AMA Style

Kuribayashi S, Hosaka H, Uraoka T. Usefulness of Endoscopy for the Detection and Diagnosis of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders and Diseases Relating to Abnormal Esophageal Motility. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(4):695. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040695

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuribayashi, Shiko, Hiroko Hosaka, and Toshio Uraoka. 2023. "Usefulness of Endoscopy for the Detection and Diagnosis of Primary Esophageal Motility Disorders and Diseases Relating to Abnormal Esophageal Motility" Diagnostics 13, no. 4: 695. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040695

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop