Moreno PR, González VE, Flores MA

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 139-145
PDF size: 463.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background Laryngopharyngeal reflux is a syndrome that shows multiple clinical manifestations, although many patients report intermittent hoarseness as a symptom that most frequently requires medical visits. It may be present in up to 50% of patients with voice disorders. The application of the Reflux Symptom Index and Reflux Findings Score is considered useful for the diagnosis of this disease being fast, cheap and reliable.
Objectives To determine the correlation between the severity of symptoms and endoscopic signs of laryngopharyngeal reflux in adults with dysphonia compared with adults without dysphonia.
Material and method A clinical, descriptive, transverse and analytical study was conducted from March to July 2012. The control group had 89 patients and the study group had 87. Under informed consent was given a questionnaire form for laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms and subsequently a nasopharyngolaryngoscopy was performed.
Results For the group of healthy patients, the average score of Reflux Symptom Index was 4.27 ± 3.222 and for the group of dysphonia was 17.56 ± 10.029. The overall result of the Reflux Finding Score was for the healthy group an average of 1.53 ± 1.63; and for the group of dysphonia was 5.63 ± 2.97. The overall Pearson correlation between the RSI and the RFS was found positive (0.623) being statistically significant with a p of 0.000 reported as moderately good.
Conclusions Reflux Symptom Index is a useful and cheap tool that may be used in the daily consultation. Reflux Finding Score is also a useful tool for the standardization and search directed of signs of laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients assessed in the consultation of this service.

REFERENCES

1. Tauber S, Gross M, Issing WJ. Association of laryngopharyngeal symptoms with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Laryngoscope 2002;112:879-886.

2. Reavis KM, Morris CD, Gopal DV, Hunter JG, Jobe BA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms better predict the presence of esophageal adenocarcinoma than typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Ann Surg 2004;239:849-856.

3. Koufman J. Laryngopharyngeal reflux 2002: A new paradigm of airway disease. Ear Nose Throat J 2002;81:2-6.

4. Book DT, Rhee JS, Toohill RJ, Smith TL. Perspectives in laryngopharyngeal reflux: an international survey. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1399-1406.

5. Koufman JA. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 1991;101:1-78.

6. Vavricka SR, Storck CA, Wildi SM. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1379-1381.

7. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Validity and reliability of the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). J Voice 2002;16:274-277.

8. Patton DD. Office procedures. Nasopharyngoscopy. Prim Care 1997;24:359-374.

9. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. The validity and reliability of the Reflux Finding Score (RFS). Laryngoscope 2001;111:1313-1317.

10. Kawamura O, Aslam M, Rittmann T, Hofmann C, Shaker R. Physical and pH properties of gastroesophagopharyngeal refluxate: a 24-hour simultaneous ambulatory impedance and pH monitoring study. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1000-1010.

11. Book DT, Rhee JS, Toohill RJ, Smith TL. Perspectives in laryngopharyngeal reflux: an international survey. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1399-1406.

12. Ford CN, Inagi K, Khidr A, Bless DM, Gilchrist KW. Sulcus vocalis: a rational analytical approach to diagnosis and management. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:189-200.