Toward an Improved Understanding of Isolated Upright Reflux: Positional Effects on the Lower Esophageal Sphincter in Patients with Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Patients Who Received or Declined Nissen Fundoplication

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether Robotic or Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication (LNF) improves voice outcomes and symptoms in patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR) compared to patients who were candidates for surgery but elected to receive treatment with antireflux medical management alone.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who visited the office of the senior author, received a diagnosis of LPR, and were candidates for LNF. Patients were categorized into two groups: those who received LNF surgery (Nissen-received, n = 50) and those who declined surgery (Nissen-declined, n = 54). Reflux Finding Scores (RFS) collected pre- and post-treatment were compared between groups. 24-hour pH-impedance results also were evaluated pre- and post-treatment.

RESULTS

24-hour pH-impedance testing from patients in the Nissen-received group showed a statistically significant decrease in six recording categories at the proximal sensor and five at the distal sensor, pre- to post-Nissen fundoplication. Proximal sensor categories included: (1) total reflux, (2) supine reflux, (3) acidic reflux, (4) weakly acidic reflux, (5) upright reflux, and (6) total postprandial reflux. Distal sensor categories included: (1) total reflux, (2) weakly acidic reflux, (3) supine reflux, (4) upright reflux, and (5) upright weakly acidic reflux. There were statistically significant differences in the changes from pre- to post-intervention when comparing between the Nissen-received and Nissen-declined groups at three proximal and three distal recordings. The proximal recording categories were (1) total reflux, (2) upright reflux, and (3) upright weakly acidic reflux, and the distal sensor categories were (1) upright reflux, (2) upright weakly acidic reflux, and (3) weakly acidic reflux. The Nissen-received group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in total RFS score, as well as the subcategory score of erythema, from pre- to post-Nissen fundoplication. There were statistically significant differences in the subcategory scores of erythema and diffuse laryngeal edema when comparing the changes from pre- to post-intervention between the Nissen-received and Nissen-declined groups.

CONCLUSION

LNF provides improved LPR control compared with treatment with antireflux medication alone.

Prevalence and Features of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Patients with Primary Burning Mouth Syndrome

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the prevalence and features of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective uncontrolled study.

METHODS

Patients who visited our Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck and Maxillofacial surgery with BMS were prospectively recruited from September 2018 to September 2020. Patients benefited from dental, maxillofacial, otolaryngological examinations, and hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance pH-monitoring (HEMII-pH). Oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal findings and symptoms were rated with Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA) and Reflux Symptom Score-12 (RSS-12). Patients were treated with a combination of diet, pantoprazole, and alginate.

RESULTS

From the 81 included patients, 76 reported >1 pharyngeal reflux events (93.8%), accounting for 35 (46.1%), 24 (31.6%), and 17 (22.3%) acid, mixed, and nonacid LPR, respectively. Thirty-two patients had both LPR and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Thirty-eight patients benefited from pepsin saliva measurement, which was positive in 86.8% of cases. The mean scores of mouth/tongue burning, RSS-12, and RSA significantly improved from pre- to post-treatment (P < .004). At 3-month post-treatment, 62.5% of patients reported an improvement of mouth/tongue burning score. Patients with both GERD and LPR reported higher baseline RSS-12 and RSA scores.

CONCLUSION

Acid, weakly acid, and nonacid LPR may be involved in the development of BMS. The use of an appropriate treatment considering the reflux features is associated with an improvement of symptoms and findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 2021.

Simultaneous Evaluation of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux and Swallowing Function Using Hypopharyngeal Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance Measurements in Neurologically Impaired Patients

Background/Aims

This study aims to evaluate the presence of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to investigate the use of hypopharyngeal baseline impedance (BI) for assessing swallowing dysfunction and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) using hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH (HMII-pH) monitoring in neurologically impaired patients (NIPs).

Methods

The study population in this retrospective study comprised 20 NIPs (mean age, 36.1 ± 15.0 years; age range, 13-64 years) who underwent multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH (MII-pH), HMII-pH, and laryngoscopy using the Hyodo scoring method from December 2016 to April 2019. The MII-pH and HMM-pH parameters were compared in the NIPs, whereas hypopharyngeal BI values were compared between NIPs with ≥ 5 and < 5 in Hyodo scores. Correlations between the hypopharyngeal BI values and the Hyodo score were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. A receiver operator characteristic curve was created to determine the optimum cut-off of hypopharyngeal BI value to discriminate SD.

Results

Three NIPs were diagnosed with pathological LPR and GERD by the HMII-pH monitoring. No significant differences in parameters were observed between MII-pH and HMII-pH monitoring. The correlation analysis demonstrated a significant negative correlation between the hypopharyngeal BI values and Hyodo scores. The optimal cutoff value for hypopharyngeal BI was 1552 Ω.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the usefulness of HMII-pH monitoring in identifying NIP with pathological LPR. Considering the difficulties in performing examinations in NIPs, HMII-pH monitoring may be a potentially useful technique for the simultaneous evaluation of swallowing dysfunction, LPR, and GERD in NIP.

Management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Around the World: An International Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate worldwide practices of otolaryngologists in the management of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

METHODS

An online survey was sent on the management of LPR to members of many otolaryngological societies. The following aspects were evaluated: LPR definition, prevalence, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 824 otolaryngologists participated, spread over 65 countries. The symptoms most usually attributed to LPR are cough after lying down/meal, throat clearing and globus sensation while LPR-related findings are arytenoid erythema and posterior commissure hypertrophy. Irrespective to geography, otolaryngologists indicate lack of familiarity with impedance pH monitoring, which they attribute to lack of knowledge in result interpretation. The most common therapeutic regimens significantly vary between world regions, with a higher use of H2 blocker in North America and a lower use of alginate in South America. The duration of treatment also significantly varies between different regions, with West Asia/Africa and East Asia/Oceania otolaryngologists prescribing medication for a shorter period than the others. Only 21.1% of respondents are aware about the existence of nonacid LPR. Overall, only 43.2% of otolaryngologists believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable about LPR.

CONCLUSIONS

LPR knowledge and management significantly vary across the world. International guidelines on LPR definition, diagnosis, and treatment are needed to improve knowledge and management around the world.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N.A. Laryngoscope, 131:E1589-E1597, 2021.

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: A State-of-the-Art Algorithm Management for Primary Care Physicians

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common disease in the general population with acute or chronic symptoms. LPR is often misdiagnosed in primary care because of the lack of typical gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and findings on endoscopy. Depending on the physician's specialty and experience, LPR may be over- or under-diagnosed. Management of LPR is potentially entirely feasible in primary care as long as General Practitioners (GPs) are aware of certain "red flags" that will prompt referral to a Gastroenterologist or an Otolaryngologist. The use of patient-reported outcome questionnaires and the consideration of some easy ways to diagnose LPR without special instrumentation oropharyngeal findings may help the GP to diagnose and often manage LPR. In this review, we provide a practical algorithm for LPR management for GPs and other specialists that cannot perform fiberoptic examination. In this algorithm, physicians have to exclude some confounding conditions such as allergy or other causes of pharyngolaryngitis and "red flags". They may prescribe an empirical treatment based on diet and behavioral changes with or without medication, depending on the symptom severity. Proton pump inhibitors and alginates remain a popular choice in order to protect the upper aerodigestive tract mucosa from acid, weakly acid and alkaline pharyngeal reflux events.

Effect of Body Position on High-resolution Esophageal Manometry Variables and Final Manometric Diagnosis

Background/Aims

According to the Chicago classification version 3.0, high-resolution manometry (HRM) should be performed in the supine position. However, with the patient in the upright/sitting position, the test could more closely simulate real-life behavior and may be better tolerated. We performed a systematic review of the literature to search whether the manometric variables and the final diagnosis are affected by positional changes.

Methods

A literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English that compared HRM results in different body positions were included. Moreover, the change in diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders according to the shift of body position was investigated.

Results

Seventeen studies including 1714 patients and healthy volunteers met the inclusion criteria. Six studies showed a significant increase in lower esophageal sphincter basal pressure in the supine position. Integrated relaxation pressure was significantly higher in the supine position in 10 of 13 studies. Distal contractile index was higher in the supine position in 9 out of 10 studies. One hundred and fifty-one patients (16.4%) out of 922 with normal HRM in the supine position were diagnosed with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) when the test was performed in the upright position (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Performing HRM in the upright position affects some variables and may change the final manometric diagnosis. Further studies to determine the normal values in the sitting position are needed.

Saliva Pepsin Concentration of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Patients Is Influenced by Meals Consumed Before the Samples

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To assess the impact of diet on the saliva pepsin concentration of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

STUDY DESIGN

Non-controlled Prospective Study.

METHODS

Patients with positive LPR regarding hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) were enrolled from three European Hospitals. Patients collected three saliva samples, respectively, in the morning (fasting), and 1 to 2 hour after lunch and dinner. Patients carefully detailed foods and beverages consumed during meals and before the pepsin samples. The 3-month treatment was based on the association of diet, proton pump inhibitors, alginate, or magaldrate regarding the HEMII-pH characteristics. Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA) were used for assessing the pre- to posttreatment clinical evolution. The Refluxogenic Diet Score and the Refluxogenic Score of a Dish (RESDI) were used to assess the refluxogenic potential of foods and beverages. The relationship between saliva pepsin concentration, HEMII-pH, RESDI, RSS, and RSA was investigated through multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were included. The saliva pepsin concentration of the 24-hour period of testing was significantly associated with foods and beverages consumed during the testing period and the evening dinner (r_s = 0.973, P < .001). RSS and RSA significantly improved throughout treatment. The level of saliva pepsin in the morning was a negative predictive factor of the therapeutic response regarding RSA and RSS (P < .036).

CONCLUSIONS

Foods and beverages may significantly impact the saliva pepsin concentration of patients with LPR. Patients with high-level saliva pepsin in the morning had lower therapeutic response compared with those with low-level saliva pepsin.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:350-359, 2021.

Association between body positioning and gastroesophageal reflux in paediatric age

AIM

Postural measures are frequently recommended for gastroesophageal reflux (GER) symptoms, despite limited evidence. This was the first study to assess the impact of upright and recumbent body positions on GER episodes in children and adolescents, not just infants.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the pH-impedance parameters of paediatric patients referred for possible GER-related symptoms to two hospitals in Naples and Rome, Italy, from September 2016 to September 2018. Data were separately obtained for the time that the patients spent in upright and recumbent positions.

RESULTS

Data from 187 patients under the age of 18 were collected, at a mean age of just over seven years. We found that the acid exposure time was stable irrespective of changes in body position (P > .05). The mean number of reflux episodes per hour was 2.99 during the upright position and 1.21 during the recumbent position (P < .05), and the mean oesophageal acid clearance time was 44.4 and 93.4 seconds, respectively (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Most paediatric patients experienced reflux in the upright rather than recumbent position, probably as a result of frequent transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations while they were awake. In particular, our findings provide new insights into postural measures for reflux in children and adolescents.

Do Laryngologists and General Otolaryngologists Manage Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Differently?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate current practices of laryngologists and non-laryngologists in management of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux (LPR).

METHODS

An online survey was sent to members of otolaryngology societies about LPR, and subgroup analysis was performed between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. This survey was conducted by the LPR Study Group of Young Otolaryngologists of the International Federation of Otolaryngological Societies.

RESULTS

A total of 535 otolaryngologists completed the survey. Among them, 127 were laryngologists and 408 were non-laryngologists. Collectively, symptoms most commonly attributed to LPR are cough after lying down/meal, throat clearing, and acid brash; most common findings are thought to be arytenoid erythema and posterior commissure hypertrophy. Respectively, 12.5% and 5% of non-laryngologists and laryngologists believe that ≥50% of LPR patients suffer from heartburn (P = .010). Non-laryngologists are more aware about some extra-laryngeal findings associated with LPR (eg, pharyngeal erythema) than laryngologists. Neither laryngologists nor non-laryngologists associated development of benign lesions of the vocal folds with reflux. The management of LPR substantially differs between groups, with laryngologists indicating increased awareness of (impedance)-pH monitoring as well as the prevalence and treatment of nonacid/mixed LPR. Conversely, non-laryngologists are much more likely to include gastroenterology referral in their management of presumed LPR. Respectively, 44.8% and 27.6% of non-laryngologists and laryngologists believe themselves not sufficiently knowledgeable about LPR.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists in diagnosis and treatment of LPR. Overall only one-third of responders believe themselves to be sufficiently educated about LPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 130:E539-E547, 2020.

Gastroesophageal reflux in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients: Clinical features and therapeutic response

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical features and the therapeutic response of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients with or without gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

Patients with LPR symptoms were enrolled from three European Hospitals. The diagnosis of LPR and GERD was made through impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH). A gastrointestinal endoscopy was realized in patients with digestive complaints or ≥60 years old. The 3- to 6-month treatment was based on the association of diet, pantoprazole, alginate, and magaldrate regarding the MII-pH characteristics. Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA) were used to evaluate the clinical evolution throughout treatment. The gastrointestinal endoscopy findings, clinical features, and therapeutic response were compared between patients with LPR and GERD (LPR/GERD) and patients with LPR.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven LPR patients were included, 54 being LPR/GERD. LPR/GERD patients had a higher number of proximal reflux episodes compared with LPR patients. The prevalence of esophagitis, hernia hiatal, and lower esophageal sphincter insufficiency did not differ between groups. The presence of GERD was strongly associated with acid LPR. Patients without GERD had a higher proportion of nonacid and mixed LPR compared with LPR/GERD patients. The pre- to posttreatment evolutions of RSS and RSA were quite similar in both groups, with the exception of the 3- to 6-month improvement of digestive symptoms, which was better in LPR/GERD group. The therapeutic success rates were 79.6% and 77.2% in GERD/LPR and LPR group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GERD is predictive of acid LPR. The clinical evolution and the therapeutic response rates were quite similar in both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 130: E479-E489, 2020.

Characteristics of upright versus supine reflux pattern in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

INTRODUCTION

Many laryngeal-related problems have been attributed to laryngopharyngeal reflux including dysphonia, frequent throat clearing, chronic cough, and globus sensation. However, there is still controversy regarding diagnosis and clinical presentation of this disorder.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to describe laryngopharyngeal reflux characteristics of different reflux position patterns in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal pH monitoring.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for 161 laryngopharyngeal reflux patients diagnosed with 24h oro-pharyngeal pH monitoring. Study subjects were categorized into upright and supine laryngopharyngeal reflux groups based on the pH results. The two groups were compared regarding the clinical presentation and pH characteristics.

RESULTS

Significant higher rates of upright laryngopharyngeal reflux position than supine laryngopharyngeal reflux position (P<0.0001) were reported among the study group. Reflux symptoms index results were significantly higher in the upright larybgopharyngeal reflux group compared to the supine laryngopharyngeal reflux group. 24h oropharyngeal pH measurements composite Ryan score was significantly higher in the upright group compared to the supine group (P<0.0001). No significant difference was found between the upright and supine laryngopharyngeal reflux groups regarding the frequency of clinical presentation or voice handicap index ratings.

CONCLUSION

Laryngopharyngeal reflux was found to be more prevalent occurring in the upright position among the study group. Reflux-related characteristics including pH parameters were more evident in the upright laryngopharyngeal reflux position.

Extraesophageal Symptoms and Diseases Attributed to GERD: Where is the Pendulum Swinging Now?

The purpose of this review is to outline the recent developments in the field of extraesophageal reflux disease and provide clinically relevant recommendations. The recommendations outlined in this review are based on expert opinion and on relevant publications from PubMed and EMbase. The Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association proposes the following recommendations: Best Practice Advice 1: The role of a gastroenterologist in patients referred for evaluation of suspected extra esophageal symptom is to assess for gastroesophageal etiologies that could contribute to the presenting symptoms. Best Practice Advice 2: Non-GI evaluations by ENT, pulmonary and/or allergy are essential and often should be performed initially in most patients as the cause of the extraesophageal symptom is commonly multifactorial or not esophageal in origin. Best Practice Advice 3: Empiric therapy with aggressive acid suppression for 6-8 weeks with special focus on response of the extraesophageal symptoms can help in assessing association between reflux and extraesophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 4: No single testing methodology exists to definitively identify reflux as the etiology for the suspected extra esophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 5: Constellation of patient presentation, diagnostic test results and response to therapy should be employed in the determination of reflux as a possible etiology in extra esophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 6: Testing may need to be off or on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy depending on patients' presenting demographics and symptoms in assessing the likelihood of abnormal gastroesophageal reflux. A. On therapy testing may be considered in those with high probability of baseline reflux (those with previous esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus or abnormal pH). B. Off therapy testing may be considered in those with low probability of baseline reflux with the goal of identifying moderate to severe reflux at baseline. Best Practice Advice 7: Lack of response to aggressive acid suppressive therapy combined with normal pH testing off therapy or impedance-pH testing on therapy significantly reduces the likelihood that reflux is a contributing etiology in presenting extraesophageal symptoms. Best Practice Advice 8: Surgical fundoplication is discouraged in those with extra esophageal reflux symptoms unresponsive to aggressive PPI therapy. Best Practice Advice 9: Fundoplication should only be considered in those with a mechanical defect (e.g., hiatal hernia), moderate to severe reflux at baseline off PPI therapy who have continued reflux despite PPI therapy and have failed more conservative non-GI treatments.

Clinical Characteristics of Severe Erosive Esophagitis among Patients with Erosive Esophagitis: A Case-control Study

Objective The risk factors associated with severe erosive esophagitis are not well defined in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors associated with the endoscopic severity of esophageal mucosal injury. Methods Eighty consecutive Japanese patients with severe erosive esophagitis [Los Angeles (LA) classification grade C or D] who had undergone upper endoscopies in the Gastroenterology Division of Omori Red Cross Hospital between June 2010 and March 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. For each case, a control with mild erosive esophagitis (LA classification grade A or B) who was matched by sex and age was randomly selected during the same period. Among the endoscopic findings, the condition of the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) was graded according to Hill's classification. We identified the risk factors for severe erosive esophagitis using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results A poor performance status (PS) (odds ratio [OR]=17.1201, 95% confidence interval [CI]=3.0268-140.3121, p=0.0008) and an abnormal GEFV (OR=3.0176, 95% CI=1.0589-9.4939, p=0.0385) were risk factors for severe erosive esophagitis, while the presence of open-type gastric mucosal atrophy (GMA) was inversely associated with severe erosive esophagitis (OR=0.2772, 95% CI=0.1087-0.6675, p=0.0040). Conclusion Among patients with erosive esophagitis, a poor PS and an abnormal GEFV were associated while GMA was inversely associated with severe erosive esophagitis. Drug therapy alone or in combination with physical therapy may improve the therapeutic effect on severe erosive esophagitis in patients with a poor PS.

Unmet needs in treating laryngo-pharyngeal reflux disease: where do we go from here?

INTRODUCTION

Many patients experience ear, nose and throat symptoms associated with their gastroesophageal reflux disease. These symptoms are purportedly caused by reflux of gastroduodenal contents into the larynx, which leads to laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). Various modalities are used to diagnose LPR, including ambulatory pH monitoring, laryngoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy, as well as a few new emerging diagnostic tests. However, there are still no established diagnostic criteria or gold standard methodologies that can reliably distinguish LPR from other conditions.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we will evaluate currently available diagnostic tests and therapeutic options for patients with laryngeal signs and symptoms of reflux and briefly discuss the development and emergence of new treatments. Numerous studies have investigated the role of proton pump inhibitor therapy in this patient population, but have led to disparate and often inconsistent results. Expert commentary: While a subgroup of patients with LPR appears to respond to PPI therapy, many patients show no symptomatic improvement, particularly with respect to extraesophageal symptoms. As such, there is a vital need to explore alternative treatment options, including anti-reflux surgery, lifestyle changes, and other classes of medications to better address LPR.

Increased Pharyngeal Reflux in Patients Treated for Laryngeal Cancer

Objective

Laryngopharyngeal reflux may cause significant morbidity in the head and neck cancer population. The goal was to determine if pharyngeal reflux is increased as a result of treatment for laryngeal cancer.

Study Design

A prospective clinical trial.

Setting

Tertiary care center.

Subjects

Head and neck cancer patients treated at LSU Health–Shreveport with a plan for total laryngectomy.

Methods

Pharyngeal pH probes with resultant reflux scores were utilized in patients with laryngeal/pharyngeal cancer with a plan for total laryngectomy.

Results

Twenty-four patients were enrolled, of whom 10 underwent postlaryngectomy pH probe monitoring. The mean upright Ryan score for patients with prior radiotherapy was 238.4 (n = 8), compared with 22.0 (n = 16) in those without prior radiotherapy ( P = .02). The supine score was 12.7 in the radiotherapy group and 2.7 in those without radiotherapy ( P = .12). For those who completed the postlaryngectomy pH study (n = 10), the mean preoperative upright Ryan score was 106.32 ± 279.1 versus a postoperative score of 209.0 ± 352.6 ( P = .04). The mean supine preoperative Ryan score in this group was 3.9 ± 3.47, as opposed to 8.1 ± 9.6 postoperatively ( P = .13)

Conclusions

This study suggests that treatment of laryngeal cancer may increase the incidence of pharyngeal reflux. Consider screening for reflux in patients previously treated for laryngeal cancer.

How the Body Position Can Influence High-resolution Manometry Results in the Study of Esophageal Dysphagia and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The body position can influence esophageal motility data obtained with high-resolution manometry (HRM). To examine whether the body position influences HRM diagnoses in patients with esophageal dysphagia and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

METHODS

HRM (Manoscan) was performed in 99 patients in the sitting and supine positions; 49 had dysphagia and 50 had GERD as-sessed by 24-hour pH monitoring. HRM plots were analyzed according to the Chicago classification.

RESULTS

HRM results varied in the final diagnoses of the esophageal body (EB) in patients with dysphagia (P = 0.024), the result being more distal spasm and weak peristalsis while sitting. In patients with GERD, the HRM diagnoses of the lower esophageal sphinc-ter (LES), the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) morphology, and EB varied depending on the position; (P = 0.063, P = 0.017, P = 0.041 respectively). Hypotensive LES, EGJ type III (hiatal hernia), and weak peristalsis were more frequently identified in the sitting position. The reliability (kappa) of the position influencing HRM diagnoses was similar in dysphagia and GERD ("LES diagnosis": dysphagia 0.32 [0.14-0.49] and GERD 0.31 [0.10-0.52], P = 0.960; "EB diagnosis": dysphagia 0.49 [0.30-0.69] and GERD 0.39 [0.20-0.59], P = 0.480). The reliability in "EGJ morphology" studies was higher in dysphagia 0.81 (0.68-0.94) than in GERD 0.55 (0.37-0.73), P = 0.020.

CONCLUSIONS

HRM results varied according to the position in patients with dysphagia and GERD. Weak peristalsis was more frequently diagnosed while sitting in dysphagia and GERD. Hypotensive LES and EGJ type III (hiatal hernia) were also more frequently diagnosed in the sitting position in patients with GERD.

The effect of position on esophageal structure and function determined with solid-state high-resolution manometry

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of posture on the anatomy and function of esophageal sphincters using solid-state high-resolution manometry.

METHODS

Fifty individuals underwent esophageal manometry with a 36-channel solid-state catheter in the supine and upright positions. The length and pressure of the esophageal sphincters, as well as the esophageal and intra-abdominal lengths of lower esophageal sphincter (LES), were recorded. The residual pressure of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and the 4-s integrated relaxation pressure were also measured when the participants swallowed 10 consecutive servings of water (5 mL each). The Bland-Altman plot was used to assess agreement between these parameters in the supine and upright positions.

RESULTS

The LES resting pressure was significantly decreased in the upright position compared with the supine position (13.85 ± 5.90 mmHg vs 18.09 ± 7.80 mmHg, P = 0.000). Weaker integrated relaxation pressures were observed when the participants were in the upright position (5.66 ± 3.33 mmHg vs 7.80 ± 3.25 mmHg, P = 0.000). Compared with the supine position, the upright esophageal length was longer (P = 0.004) and the upper border of the LES was lower (P = 0.050) when the individuals were in the upright position. The agreement between the two positions was acceptable for the esophageal length, LES upper border location and LES pressure measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Body position exerts a greater influence on the LES than on the UES. Thus, it is necessary to establish normal values for the LES basal pressure and residual pressure in different positions.

Impacts of endoscopic gastroesophageal flap valve grading on pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) endoscopic grading is reported to be associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in adults; however its role in pediatric groups remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the significance of GEFV grading and the associations to multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring (MII-pH) in children with GERD.

METHODS

A total of 48 children with GERD symptoms who received esophagogastroduodenoscopy and MII-pH monitoring were enrolled. The degree of GEFV was graded from I to IV according to the Hill classification, and classified into two groups: normal GEFV (Hill grades I and II), and abnormal GEFV (Hill grades III and VI). Endoscopic findings and MII-pH monitoring were analyzed among the groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients had normal GEFV while 12 had abnormal GEFV. The presence of erosive esophagitis was significantly more common in the patients with abnormal GEFV (p = 0.037, OR 9.84, 95% CI 1.15-84.42). Pathological acidic gastroesophageal reflux (GER) determined by MII-pH was more prevalent in the patients with loosened GEFV geometry (p = 0.01, OR 7.0, 95% CI 1.67-27.38). There were significant positive correlations between GEFV Hill grading I to IV and the severity of erosive esophagitis (r = 0.49, p<0.001), percentage of supine acid reflux (r = 0.37, p = 0.009), percentage of total acid reflux (r = 0.3284, p = 0.023), and DeMeester score (r = 0.36, p = 0.01) detected by pH monitoring. In the impedance study, GEFV Hill grading also positively correlated to median number of acid reflux events (r = 0.3015, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

GEFV dysfunction highly associated with acid GER and severe erosive esophagitis. An abnormal GEFV is a sign of acid GER in children.

Voice problems among laryngopharyngeal reflux patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal pH monitoring

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a lack of consensus regarding the clinical presentation and diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to explore voice-related abnormalities in a group of LPR patients, diagnosed with a 24-hour oropharyngeal pH monitoring.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-two patients with voice-related problems participated in the study. Diagnosis of LPR was made using a 24-hour oropharyngeal pH monitoring. Patients were divided accordingly into positive and negative pH groups. Comparisons between the two groups were done, including results of clinical presentation, Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), and acoustic measurements. The correlation was conducted between Ryan scores and other variables including VHI-10, RSI, and RFS.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between the two groups for RSI and VHI-10. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding clinical presentation, RFS or acoustic measures. Significant positive correlations were found between the Ryan composite measurements and both severity ratings (VHI-10, RSI).

CONCLUSION

LPR clinical presentation appears to be non-specific in terms of symptoms and laryngeal findings. LPR appears to have an effect on the patients' self-perception of voice problems. Further studies are needed to clarify the effect of LPR on acoustic measurements.

Therapeutic strategies for laryngeal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is increasingly associated with ear, nose, and throat symptoms, including laryngitis. Many patients are unaware of the gastroesophageal etiology of their symptoms. A variety of criteria are used to diagnose this condition, including laryngoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and the use of ambulatory pH and impedance monitoring. However, no test serves as the gold standard for the diagnosis given their lack of sensitivity and specificity for reflux disease. Numerous trials have assessed the role of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux and most have revealed no benefit to acid suppression over placebo. Despite many uncertainties there has been some progress regarding the role of acid-suppressive therapy as well as other agents in this unique group of patients. In this review we explore therapeutic options and their rationale for patients with laryngeal signs and symptoms.