Laryngopharyngeal reflux: Paradigms for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment

Zhen Gooi, Stacey L. Ishman, Jonathan M. Bock, Joel H. Blumin, Lee M Akst

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to describe current patterns for diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and analyze differences between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. Methods: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Broncho-Esophagological Association members were invited to complete an online survey regarding evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of LPR. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify differences between respondents who completed laryngology fellowships (LF) and those who did not (NL). Results: Of 159 respondents, 40 were LF. Video documentation of laryngopharyngeal exams was almost universal among LF (97% vs 38%, P <.0001). Use of rigid (100%, P = .002) and flexible distal-chip technologies (94%, P = .004) was more common among LF. Diagnostic criteria were similar between the groups, with symptoms of heartburn, globus, and throat clearing thought most suggestive of LPR. Adjunctive tests most commonly used were barium esophagram and dual-probe pH testing with impedance. Laryngology fellowship-trained respondents used dual pH probes with impedance more often (P = .004). They were more likely to prescribe twice daily proton pump inhibitors with concurrent H2-blocker medication initially (P = .004) and to treat for longer than 4 weeks (P = .0003). Conclusion: Otolaryngologists are in agreement on symptoms and physical features of LPR; however, significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists on the use of adjunctive testing and treatment strategies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)677-685
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology
Volume123
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
Otolaryngology
Electric Impedance
Therapeutics
Heartburn
Proton Pump Inhibitors
Barium
Pharynx
Documentation
Neck
Head
Technology
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Diagnosis
  • Laryngopharyngeal reflux
  • Symptoms and signs
  • Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Laryngopharyngeal reflux : Paradigms for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. / Gooi, Zhen; Ishman, Stacey L.; Bock, Jonathan M.; Blumin, Joel H.; Akst, Lee M.

In: Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, Vol. 123, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 677-685.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gooi, Zhen ; Ishman, Stacey L. ; Bock, Jonathan M. ; Blumin, Joel H. ; Akst, Lee M. / Laryngopharyngeal reflux : Paradigms for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. In: Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. 2014 ; Vol. 123, No. 10. pp. 677-685.
@article{6ecdd3803c97458a96b903d21e68df23,
title = "Laryngopharyngeal reflux: Paradigms for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment",
abstract = "Objective: This study aimed to describe current patterns for diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and analyze differences between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. Methods: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Broncho-Esophagological Association members were invited to complete an online survey regarding evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of LPR. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify differences between respondents who completed laryngology fellowships (LF) and those who did not (NL). Results: Of 159 respondents, 40 were LF. Video documentation of laryngopharyngeal exams was almost universal among LF (97{\%} vs 38{\%}, P <.0001). Use of rigid (100{\%}, P = .002) and flexible distal-chip technologies (94{\%}, P = .004) was more common among LF. Diagnostic criteria were similar between the groups, with symptoms of heartburn, globus, and throat clearing thought most suggestive of LPR. Adjunctive tests most commonly used were barium esophagram and dual-probe pH testing with impedance. Laryngology fellowship-trained respondents used dual pH probes with impedance more often (P = .004). They were more likely to prescribe twice daily proton pump inhibitors with concurrent H2-blocker medication initially (P = .004) and to treat for longer than 4 weeks (P = .0003). Conclusion: Otolaryngologists are in agreement on symptoms and physical features of LPR; however, significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists on the use of adjunctive testing and treatment strategies.",
keywords = "Diagnosis, Laryngopharyngeal reflux, Symptoms and signs, Treatment",
author = "Zhen Gooi and Ishman, {Stacey L.} and Bock, {Jonathan M.} and Blumin, {Joel H.} and Akst, {Lee M}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0003489414532777",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "123",
pages = "677--685",
journal = "Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology",
issn = "0003-4894",
publisher = "Annals Publishing Company",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laryngopharyngeal reflux

T2 - Paradigms for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment

AU - Gooi, Zhen

AU - Ishman, Stacey L.

AU - Bock, Jonathan M.

AU - Blumin, Joel H.

AU - Akst, Lee M

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - Objective: This study aimed to describe current patterns for diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and analyze differences between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. Methods: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Broncho-Esophagological Association members were invited to complete an online survey regarding evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of LPR. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify differences between respondents who completed laryngology fellowships (LF) and those who did not (NL). Results: Of 159 respondents, 40 were LF. Video documentation of laryngopharyngeal exams was almost universal among LF (97% vs 38%, P <.0001). Use of rigid (100%, P = .002) and flexible distal-chip technologies (94%, P = .004) was more common among LF. Diagnostic criteria were similar between the groups, with symptoms of heartburn, globus, and throat clearing thought most suggestive of LPR. Adjunctive tests most commonly used were barium esophagram and dual-probe pH testing with impedance. Laryngology fellowship-trained respondents used dual pH probes with impedance more often (P = .004). They were more likely to prescribe twice daily proton pump inhibitors with concurrent H2-blocker medication initially (P = .004) and to treat for longer than 4 weeks (P = .0003). Conclusion: Otolaryngologists are in agreement on symptoms and physical features of LPR; however, significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists on the use of adjunctive testing and treatment strategies.

AB - Objective: This study aimed to describe current patterns for diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and analyze differences between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. Methods: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Broncho-Esophagological Association members were invited to complete an online survey regarding evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of LPR. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify differences between respondents who completed laryngology fellowships (LF) and those who did not (NL). Results: Of 159 respondents, 40 were LF. Video documentation of laryngopharyngeal exams was almost universal among LF (97% vs 38%, P <.0001). Use of rigid (100%, P = .002) and flexible distal-chip technologies (94%, P = .004) was more common among LF. Diagnostic criteria were similar between the groups, with symptoms of heartburn, globus, and throat clearing thought most suggestive of LPR. Adjunctive tests most commonly used were barium esophagram and dual-probe pH testing with impedance. Laryngology fellowship-trained respondents used dual pH probes with impedance more often (P = .004). They were more likely to prescribe twice daily proton pump inhibitors with concurrent H2-blocker medication initially (P = .004) and to treat for longer than 4 weeks (P = .0003). Conclusion: Otolaryngologists are in agreement on symptoms and physical features of LPR; however, significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists on the use of adjunctive testing and treatment strategies.

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Laryngopharyngeal reflux

KW - Symptoms and signs

KW - Treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928706845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928706845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0003489414532777

DO - 10.1177/0003489414532777

M3 - Article

C2 - 24789800

AN - SCOPUS:84928706845

VL - 123

SP - 677

EP - 685

JO - Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

JF - Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

SN - 0003-4894

IS - 10

ER -