Reflux symptom index and reflux finding score in 91 asymptomatic volunteers

Background: The primary goal of this study was to investigating the symptoms, in addition to the reflux-related laryngopharynx inflammation performance of asymptomatic, volunteers, and verified the ‘normal point’.

Methods: A total of 91 asymptomatic subjects were recruited for this cross-sectional study between March 2016 and September 2016. Participants completed the reflux symptom index (RSI) assessment and underwent laryngostroboscopic examination using a rigid endoscope. Their RFS were graded according to the laryngeal findings. The distribution and the relationship of the RSI and the RFS were analyzed.

Results: The mean RSI of individuals was 2.24?±?2.34 [95% confidence interval (CI)?=?1.75, 2.72], and the mean RFS of individuals was 5.78?±?1.74 (95% CI?=?5.42, 6.15). The Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient of the RSI and RFS scores was –0.084 (n?=?91, p?=?.428).

Conclusions: Asymptomatic people could present relatively high RFS scores, and no linear relationship existed between RSI and RFS.     

双探头24小时pH监测对咽喉反流的诊断价值及特点

目的对咽喉反流患者用食道测压定位法行双探头24小时pH监测,探讨其诊断价值及特点。方法对53例疑咽喉反流患者用食道测压定位法行双探头24小时pH监测同时用反流症状指数量表(reflux symptom index,RSI)、反流检查计分量表(reflux finding score,RFS)2个量表评估。结果 53例患者中31例咽喉反流阳性,与吸烟有相关性。RSI中以声嘶、咽异物感、持续清嗓为主要症状,RFS中以后连合增生、假声带沟、喉内黏液附着为主要体征。咽喉部酸反流主要发生在直立位,其中9例患者只有咽喉反流性疾病,10例只有胃食管反流性疾病;酸反流次数、酸暴露时间(即pH<4.0的总时间)与2个量表的评估有显著性差异。咽喉部pH监测结果与2个量表评估结果程度一致。结论咽喉反流性疾病可不伴发胃食管反流性疾病,减少酸反流次数及减少酸在咽喉部停留时间在治疗疾病中较为重要,RSI和RFS 2个量表可作为咽喉反流性疾病诊断的初筛。     

咽喉反流与发声障碍的相关性研究

目的:探讨咽喉反流的嗓音学特征及其对患者生活质量的影响,分析主客观评估方法的相关性。方法:对196例可疑有咽喉反流的患者行一般情况调查、电子鼻咽喉镜检查、反流症状指数量表(RSI)和反流检查计分量表(RFS)评估,将其中RSI评分>13分、RFS评分>7分定为阳性。将2个量表评分均为阳性的100例患者作为研究对象,进一步进行嗓音障碍指数量表(VHI)评估、嗓音声学分析及电声门图检查,并与健康对照组比较。结果:男女基频均比健康对照组降低,基频微扰、振幅微扰及标准化噪声能量增高,接触率降低,最大发声时间缩短,与健康对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。VHI量表评估生理P评分最高,其次为功能F评分,情感E评分最低。咽喉反流患者的RSI与VHI有一定相关性(P<0.05),而RFS与RSI、VHI无明显相关性(P>0.05)。咽喉反流患者的嗓音障碍指数评估示生理、功能和情感之间明显相关。结论:嗓音声学分析及电声门图检测从客观上提示咽喉反流相关的嗓音障碍疾病严重影响了喉的发声功能,使基频下降、声带振动不稳定、声门闭合不良及声门接触时间缩短。主客观评估方法的相关性结果提示具有明显咽喉反流症状的患者并不一定具有明显的咽喉反流体征。     

Prevalence of laryngopharyngeal reflux in a population with gastroesophageal reflux

OBJECTIVE: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a syndrome associated with a constellation of symptoms usually treated by ENT surgeons. It is believed to be caused by the retrograde flow of stomach contents into the laryngopharynx, this being a supra-esophageal manifestation of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It has been cited that LPR and GERD can be considered separate entities. Our hypothesis was that LPR is a supra-esophageal manifestation of GERD and therefore that patients with GERD should have a degree of symptoms suggestive of LPR because of the reflux of the gastric contents. We examined a population of patients with both upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and symptom-proven GERD and, using a questionnaire, looked at their existing symptoms to help assess the prevalence of LPR. We also looked at whether, with more severe GERD (suggestive of increased gastric content reflux), the degree of symptoms suggestive of LPR would be increased, as would be expected. METHODS: A population of patients with endoscopically proven GERD were recruited and divided into groups depending on the severity of their reflux disease. A questionnaire was then administered that examined both LPR and GERD scoring criteria. The relationship between GERD and LPR was then analyzed. RESULTS: We recruited 1,383 subjects with GERD; those with severe GERD had significantly higher LPR scores compared with those with mild (P < .01), moderate (P < .05), or inactive disease (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The condition of LPR is likely to represent a supra-esophageal manifestation of GERD. This study examined a large number of patients with endoscopically proven GERD and has demonstrated a correlation between the severity of GERD and the prevalence of LPR. LPR and GERD are common and interlinked conditions. The subsequent prevalence of LPR in the population with GERD is therefore likely to be dramatically underestimated.     

慢性咽炎患者喉咽反流分析

目的 探讨慢性咽炎与喉咽反流(laryngopharyngeal reflux,LPR)发生的关系.方法 对112例慢性咽炎患者行24小时双探头(食管和咽部)pH值监测,将检查出的62例LPR患者随机分为两组,实验组:应用抑制胃酸药和清热解毒的咽炎药治疗;对照组:单用清热解毒的咽炎药,对两组咽部症状缓解及病变改善情况进行统计学比较.结果 慢性咽炎的体征多样化,实验组35例,有效率94.29%(33例),对照组27例,有效率77.78%(21例),P＜0.05.结论 LPR是导致慢性咽炎的重要病因,使用抑酸剂可明显改善喉咽反流,从而达到治疗慢性咽炎的目的.     

福州地区咽喉反流疾病患病率和相关危险因素分析

目的 分析福州地区咽喉反流疾病(laryngopharyngeal reflux disease,LPRD)的患病率和相关危险因素,为LPRD的防治提供理论依据.方法 采用随机整群抽样法抽取福州社区居民进行问卷调查.按照统一调查问卷,内容包括一般情况、Belafsky反流症状指数量表(reflux symptom index,RSI)和相关危险因素,其中RSI>13分为LPRD组,≤13分为非LPRD组,调查资料进行统计分析.结果 共发放问卷4100份,其中有效问卷4063例,LPRD患病率为5.00%(203/4063).经常进食过饱、常饮浓茶、绝经、经常鼻塞流涕、经常扁桃体炎是LPRD发生的危险因素.结论 福州地区人群LPRD与多种因素密切相关.     

针灸联合嗓音矫治治疗原发性肌紧张性发声障碍

目的探讨针灸联合嗓音矫治对原发性肌紧张性发音障碍患者的治疗效果。方法将40例原发性肌紧张性发音障碍患者随机分为嗓音矫治组及针灸联合嗓音矫治组(针灸联合治疗组),每组20例。嗓音矫治组采用放松训练、轻松发音、口腔共鸣及情景对话四阶段循环嗓音矫治方法治疗,针灸联合嗓音矫治组在嗓音矫治的基础上加用6处穴位的针灸治疗三周,比较两组治疗前后的基频微扰(jitter)、振幅微扰(shimmer)、最长发声时间(MPT)、嗓音障碍严重指数(dysphonia severity index,DSI)、频闪喉镜检查、嗓音障碍指数(VHI)评估、嗓音主观评分(GRBAS)、康复时间及3月后复发率。结果①治疗前上述指标两组之间无显著性差异(P>0.05);治疗后,两组患者jitter、shimmer、VHI及G评分均较治疗前显著减小(P<0.05),MPT及DSI较治疗前显著升高(P<0.05);但两组之间治疗后jitter、shimmer、MPT、DSI及G评分均无显著性差异(均P>0.05),针灸联合治疗组VHI评分低于嗓音矫治组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。②两组患者至治疗结束时频闪喉镜检查均表现为声门上区挤压消失,室带收缩显著缓解,声带均可正常暴露并观察到正常粘膜波,声门后裂隙不同程度减小甚至消失。③针灸联合治疗组康复时间(中位数32.15天)显著短于嗓音矫治组(中位数41.07天)(P<0.01);针灸联合治疗组3月后复发5例(25.0%,5/20),嗓音矫治组3月后复发6例(30.0%,6/20),治疗后两组复发率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论针灸及嗓音矫治治疗原发性肌紧张性发声障碍均有良好的治疗效果,两者联合能够缩短疗程,更有利于改善患者的主观症状。     

Correlation of pH probe-measured laryngopharyngeal reflux with symptoms and signs of reflux laryngitis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Laryngitis secondary to gastric acid reflux is a prevalent, yet incompletely understood, otolaryngological disorder. Further characterization of the relationship between symptoms and signs and reflux severity is needed. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial. METHODS: Forty-two consecutive, nonsmoking patients with one or more reflux laryngitis symptoms were recruited to complete a symptom questionnaire, videostrobolaryngoscopy, and 24-hour, dual-sensor pH probe testing. Twenty-nine patients had more than four episodes of laryngopharyngeal reflux, and the remaining 13 served as control subjects. Symptom scores were produced by multiplying the severity by the frequency for the following: hoarseness, throat pain, "lump-in-throat" sensation, throat clearing, cough, excessive phlegm, dysphagia, odynophagia, and heartburn. Endoscopic laryngeal signs included erythema and edema of the vocal folds and arytenoids, and interarytenoid irregularity. RESULTS: Symptom scores varied significantly, with throat clearing being greater than the rest. None of the symptoms, except heartburn, correlated with reflux (laryngopharyngeal and esophageal) severity. Patients with worse laryngopharyngeal reflux were found to have worse esophageal reflux. Endoscopic laryngeal signs were rated as mild, on average, and did not correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux severity. The number of laryngopharyngeal reflux episodes (per 24 h) ranged from 0 to 40 (mean number, 10.6 episodes). CONCLUSIONS: Throat clearing was the most intense symptom in the present group of patients with proven reflux laryngitis. Dual-sensor pH probe testing could not predict the severity of patient's reflux laryngitis symptoms or signs. Only the heartburn symptom correlated with laryngopharyngeal and esophageal reflux.     

Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms improve before changes in physical findings

BACKGROUND: Patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) undergoing treatment appear to have improvement in symptoms before the complete resolution of the laryngeal findings. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with LPR experience an improvement in symptoms before the complete resolution of the laryngeal findings. METHODOLOGY: Forty consecutive patients with LPR documented by double-probe pH monitoring were evaluated prospectively. Symptom response to therapy with proton pump inhibitors was assessed at 2, 4, and 6 months of treatment with a self-administered reflux symptom index (RSI). In addition, transnasal fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TFL) was performed and a reflux finding score (RFS) was determined for each patient at each visit. RESULTS: The mean RSI at entry was 19.3 (+/- 8.9 standard deviation) and it improved to 13.9 (+/- 8.8) at 2 months of treatment (P <.05). No further significant improvement was noted at 4 months (13.1 +/- 9.8) or 6 months (12.2 +/- 8.1) of treatment. The RFS at entry was 11.5 (+/- 5.2), and it improved to 9.4 (+/- 4.7) at 2 months, 7.3 (+/- 5.5) at 4 months, and 6.1 (+/- 5.2) after 6 months of treatment (P <.05 with trend). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of LPR improve over 2 months of therapy. No significant improvement in symptoms occurs after 2 months. This preliminary report demonstrates that the physical findings of LPR resolve more slowly than the symptoms and this continues throughout at least 6 months of treatment. These data imply that the physical findings of LPR are not always associated with patient symptoms, and that treatment should continue for a minimum of 6 months or until complete resolution of the physical findings.     

嗓音障碍指数主观评估与发音障碍严重程度指数客观检测的相关性分析

目的 探讨声带息肉患者嗓音障碍指数（voice handicap index,VHI）量表自我评估和发音障碍严重程度指数（dysphonia severity index,DSI）客观评估的相关性。 方法 取104例声带息肉患者,用VHI中文版量表进行自评及DIVAS2.5声学分析软件分析DSI,按性别、侧别、形状、大小分组比较,分析VHI和DSI的相关性。结果 声带息肉的大小、形状对VHI各指标差异均无统计学意义,但较大或广基底形息肉基频微扰较重;女性患者功能、生理和VHI总体评价高于男性,但DSI却低于男性;双侧息肉比单侧在生理方面影响较重,同时DSI也较重;VHI量表各指标与嗓音声学分析各参数之间无明显相关性。结论 目前临床上评估嗓音障碍程度的两种主客观方法都不理想,应进一步研究更好的评价方法。     

Helicobacter pylori seropositivity predicts outcomes of acid suppression therapy for laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms

OBJECTIVES: Although an inverse relationship has been reported between the rates of reflux esophagitis and Helicobacter pylori infection in Japan, infection rates among patients complaining of laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms, such as abnormal laryngopharyngeal sensation, chronic coughing, and hoarseness, have not previously been investigated. The effects of H. pylori infection on outcomes of acid suppression therapy have not been studied. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We investigated the relationships between H. pylori antibody positivity, laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms, objective laryngopharyngeal findings, and rate of response to acid-suppression therapy in 42 subjects who were diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease, using upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and were assayed for the serum H. pylori antibody. RESULTS: The incidence of H. pylori antibody positivity in the targeted patient group was 59.5%. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the laryngopharyngeal symptom-improvement rate, measured using the symptom score, was significantly lower for H. pylori antibody-negative cases than for H. pylori antibody-positive cases (30.0 vs. 84.6%; P = .002) 60 days after the start of acid-suppression therapy. No significant differences in the esophageal symptom-improvement rate were noted between the two groups (76.2 vs. 89.5%; P = .576) CONCLUSIONS: By focusing on the involvement of H. pylori infection in laryngopharyngeal reflux, we determined the relationships between H. pylori antibody positivity and response to acid-suppression therapy among patients. The laryngopharyngeal, not esophageal, symptom relief by acid-suppression therapy was significantly lower among H. pylori antibody-negative cases than among antibody-positive cases.     

Ryan指数与反流症状指数量表、反流体征量表在咽喉反流性疾病诊断中的相关性分析

目的 探讨Ryan指数与反流症状指数量表(RSI)、反流体征量表(RFS)在咽喉反流性疾病诊断中的相关性。 方法 回顾性分析以咽喉部不适症状就诊,病程1个月以上的行咽部pH检测的230例患者临床资料。所有患者均同时行电子喉镜检测,并行RSI、RFS评估。 结果 Ryan指数阳性率为15.2%(35/230)。RSI、RFS、RSI或RFS及RSI且RFS阳性率分别为46.5%、28.7%、60.9%、13.9%。Ryan指数阳性组患者RFS评分高于Ryan指数阴性组患者,RSI评分与Ryan指数阴性组患者差异无统计学意义。RFS阳性,RSI或RFS,RSI且RFS阳性组Ryan指数阳性率高于RFS阴性,RSI或RFS,RSI且RFS阴性组。Ryan指数阳性与RSI、RFS、RSI或RFS及RSI且RFS阳性的一致性检验的kappa值分别为-0.06,0.394,0.116和0.172。以pH监测作为金标准时,RSI、RFS、RSI或RFS及RSI且RFS的敏感性分别为37.1%,74.3%,82.9%,28.6%;特异性分别为51.8%,79.5%,43.1%,88.2%;阳性预测值分别为12.1%,39.4%,20.7%,30.3%;阴性预测值分别为82.1%,94.5%,93.3%,87.3%。RSI与直立位及平卧位Ryan指数的相关系数分别为-0.056和-0.083;RFS与直立位及平卧位Ryan指数的相关系数分别为0.425和0.166。 结论 咽部pH检测是直接反映咽喉部反流的客观、无创的检测方法。RFS与Ryan指数有一定的正相关性,但量表与Ryan指数一致性差。尚需进一步研究更准确的、反映咽喉反流的量表及pH诊断指数。     

Prevalence of esophagitis in patients with pH-documented laryngopharyngeal reflux

OBJECTIVE: To report the prevalence of esophagitis in patients with pH-documented laryngopharyngeal reflux. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of 58 consecutive patients with documented laryngopharyngeal reflux, all of whom underwent transnasal esophagoscopy as part of their reflux evaluations. METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux confirmed by abnormal pharyngeal pH monitoring over a 5-month period were included, and all subjects completed a self-administered reflux symptom index and underwent transnasal esophagoscopy with directed biopsy. RESULTS: Of the 58 study patients with pH-documented laryngopharyngeal reflux, the mean age was 49 years (+/- 13 y), and 53% (31 of 58) were women. Of the study group, 40% (23 of 58) had heartburn and 48% (28 of 58) had abnormal esophageal reflux (by pH monitoring criteria); by transnasal esophagoscopy with biopsy, 12% (7 of 58) had esophagitis and another 7% (4 of 58) had Barrett's metaplasia. Thus, 60% of the study cohort had heartburn, and 81% (47 of 58) had normal esophageal epithelium (i.e., esophagitis or Barrett's metaplasia). CONCLUSIONS: In the present series of patients with documented laryngopharyngeal reflux the prevalence of esophagitis and Barrett's metaplasia was only 19%. These data confirm the clinical impression that the patterns, mechanisms, and manifestations of laryngopharyngeal reflux differ from those of classic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Unlike gastroesophageal reflux disease, patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux uncommonly have esophagitis. Thus, although esophagoscopy may be an excellent method for screening the esophagus, it is not the method of choice for diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux.     

The effectiveness of voice therapy for patients with non-organic dysphonia

Forty-five patients diagnosed as having non-organic dysphonia were assigned in rotation to one of three groups. Patients in one group received no treatment and acted as a control group. Patients in the other two groups received a programme of either ‘indirect’ therapy or ‘direct with indirect’ therapy, respectively. A self-report questionnaire of vocal performance, observed ratings of voice quality, and computer-derived acoustic measurements (signal-to-noise ratio, pitch perturbation and amplitude perturbation) were carried out on all patients before and after treatment to evaluate the changes in voice quality over time. There was a significant difference between the three groups on the self-report questionnaire, voice quality ratings and pitch perturbation measurements (P = < 0.05). Thirteen out of 15 control patients showed no significant change on any of the measures. Seven patients who received indirect treatment showed significant improvement in voice quality following treatment. Fourteen out of 15 patients who received direct treatment showed significant improvement in voice quality.