International Journal of Otolaryngology

International Journal of Otolaryngology / 2012 / Article
Special Issue

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 908154 | 4 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/908154

Endoscopic Laryngeal Findings in Japanese Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Symptoms

Academic Editor: Wolfgang Issing
Received29 Jul 2011
Accepted16 Sep 2011
Published20 Nov 2011

Abstract

Objective. To know the characteristics of endoscopic laryngeal and pharyngeal abnormalities in Japanese patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms (LPRS). Methods. A total of 146 endoscopic images of the larynx and pharynx (60 pairs for the rabeprazole group and 13 pairs for the control group) were presented to 15 otolaryngologists blinded to patient information and were scored according to several variables potentially associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux. The median value of the 15 scores for each item from each image was obtained. The mean pretreatment scores of each item and total score were assessed in both rabeprazole and control groups. In the rabeprazole group, the endoscopic findings before and after the 4-week treatment with rabeprazole were compared. Changes between corresponding duration in the control group were also evaluated. Results. The median and mean pretreatment total score was 3 and 3.02, respectively, from the 73 patients with LPRS. No significant differences were observed before and after treatment in either the rabeprazole or control groups for any item or total score. In 24 patients with a high pretreatment score (total score ≥ 4) from the rabeprazole group, significant decreases in scores for “thick endolaryngeal mucous” (0.54 to 0.17, ) and total (4.77 to 3.58, ) were observed after the 4-week treatment.

1. Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux is a recognized cause of ENT symptoms [1]. Laryngopharyngeal symptoms and signs were referred to as laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) [2]. The laryngopharyngeal findings attributed to gastroesophageal reflux have been reported in the posterior pharyngeal wall, true vocal folds, and arytenoid medial wall [3]. However, accurate assessment of signs in the larynx and pharynx is likely to be difficult because these signs observed during a laryngoscopic examination cannot be reliably determined from clinician to clinician [4]. The sensitivity and specificity of laryngopharyngeal findings, therefore, remain uncertain, challenging the diagnostic accuracy of LPR. In this study, we conducted a multicenter clinical trial to explore the presence of endoscopic laryngeal findings in Japanese patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms (LPRSs). Because the first-line therapy for LPRS is considered to be proton pump inhibitor (PPI) [2], we also compared the endoscopic laryngeal findings before and after a 4-week acid suppression therapy.

2. Methods

Subjects consisted of outpatients visiting the otolaryngology departments of participating institutions between October 2007 and May 2008 who had at least one LPRS such as lump in the throat, throat pain, irritation in the throat, chronic cough, and hoarseness and whose consent could be obtained. A total of 255 endoscopic laryngeal images were presented to 15 otolaryngologists listed in the appendix with the subjects’ names and their before and after therapy status blinded. The 15 otolaryngologists individually scored on a four-point scale as 0 (none), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), and 3 (severe) or NE (not evaluable) for findings potentially associated with LPR, as shown in Table 1. First 5 of 7 items are derived from the Reflux Finding Score proposed by Belafsky et al. [5] and the other 2 were from the report by Vaezi et al. [3].


FindingsScore

Infraglottic edema with pseudosulcus formation0123NE
Laryngeal mucosa ledema0123NE
Posterior commissure hypertrophy0123NE
Granulation formulation0123NE
Thick endolaryngeal mucous0123NE
Redness in the intra-arythenoid medial wall0123NE
Mucous pooling in the pyriform sinus0123NE

NE: not evaluable.

Of the 255 images, 109 were excluded (95, patient overlap; 14, number of NE items > 3), and the remaining 146 images were used for further analysis. The median value of the 15 scores for each item from each subject was obtained. The mean pretreatment scores of each item and total scores were assessed. Examples for the images with high (total score: 7) and low (total score: 0) median scores were shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b), respectively. To 60 patients who were considered for indication of acid suppression therapy based on their symptoms, 10 mg/day of rabeprazole (RPZ) for 4 weeks was administered and the endoscopic findings before and after the 4-week treatment with RPZ were compared. Changes between corresponding duration in 13 patients, who had at least one LPRS and had not received acid suppression therapy, were also evaluated. Double-sided paired or unpaired -tests were used to test the significance of differences.

3. Results

The pretreatment total score for all 73 subjects ranged from 0 to 7 (median score 3, mean score 3.02). No significant differences were observed between the groups for any item or total score (RPZ group: 3.12; control group: 2.54, Table 2). Further, no significant differences were observed before and after treatment in either the RPZ or control groups for any item or total score (Tables 3 and 4). In 24 patients with a high pretreatment score (total score ≥ 4) from the RPZ group, significant decreases in scores for “thick endolaryngeal mucous” (0.54 to 0.17, ) and total (4.77 to 3.58, ) were observed after the 4-week treatment (Table 5).


Endoscopic findingsTotal ( )RPZ ( )Control ( ) -value

Infraglottic edema with pseudosulcus formation0.390.400.350.776

Laryngeal mucosa edema0.520.500.620.471

Posterior commissure hypertrophy0.830.880.620.106

Granulation formulation0.150.170.080.362

Thick endolaryngeal mucous0.220.230.150.523

Redness in the intra-arythenoid medial wall0.490.530.310.153

Mucous pooling in the pyriform sinus0.430.430.420.968

Total3.023.132.540.258


Endoscopic findingsInitial4 weeks later -value

Infraglottic edema with pseudosulcus formation0.350.460.570

Laryngeal mucosa edema0.620.770.337

Posterior commissure hypertrophy0.620.621.000

Granulation formulation0.080.081.000

Thick endolaryngeal mucous0.150.310.337

Redness in the intra-arythenoid medial wall0.310.150.337

Mucous pooling in the pyriform sinus0.420.500.838

Total2.543.000.239


Endoscopic findingsPretreatmentPost-treatment -value

Infraglottic edema with pseudosulcus formation0.400.330.419

Laryngeal mucosa edema0.500.590.268

Posterior commissure hypertrophy0.880.980.147

Granulation formulation0.170.180.709

Thick endolaryngeal mucous0.230.150.279

Redness in the intra-arythenoid medial wall0.530.620.273

Mucous pooling in the pyriform sinus0.430.370.279

Total3.133.200.779


Endoscopic findingsPretreatmentPost-treatment -value

Infraglottic edema with pseudosulcus formation0.580.380.203

Laryngeal mucosa edema0.790.650.307

Posterior commissure hypertrophy1.100.960.166

Granulation formulation0.290.291.000

Thick endolaryngeal mucous0.540.170.017

Redness in the intra-arythenoid medial wall0.830.730.396

Mucous pooling in the pyriform sinus0.630.420.135

Total4.773.580.0003

4. Discussion

The precise laryngoscopic diagnosis of LPR is likely to be difficult because the examination of abnormalities in the larynx and the pharynx could be highly subjective [4]. Even with using gastrointestinal endoscopy which provides clear images with higher resolution than laryngoscopy, diagnostic value was limited when evaluating these laryngopharyngeal lesions in patients with gastroesophageal reflux [6]. Some authors emphasize these findings in the larynx and pharynx as being specific for acid-related problems, others argue that these may be secondary to other factors such as smoking, allergies, asthma, viral illness, and voice abuse [3, 7, 8].

During our daily practice in the ENT clinics, we noticed that most of Japanese patients who complain a typical constellation of LPRS do not necessarily exhibit such laryngopharyngeal abnormal findings. We also noticed that minimal changes of these findings are very difficult to be documented objectively. These small abnormalities cannot be revealed due to the consideration to examiner bias [4, 6]. We performed this study to ensure objectivity to some extent of the examination of abnormalities in the larynx and pharynx in this patient population. We presumed that the median value of 15 otolaryngologists was the most appropriate value of each finding of the laryngopharyngeal abnormality. We then found a low pretreatment score among the Japanese patients with LPRS, suggesting that most of them had only mild laryngeal signs. When limited to the patients with a high endoscopic laryngeal score, a significant decrease in total score was observed after acid-suppression therapy.

There are some limitations in this study. Among them, the major one would be the length and the dose of PPI treatment. These could be a possible reason for causing no significant difference before and after the RPZ treatment. The 4 weeks of acid suppression with RPZ with a dose of 10 mg/day may not be long or strong enough to see objective improvement. Ford proposed an empirical therapeutic trial using double-dose, twice-daily PPI for three months [2], suggesting that both the length and the dose of PPI treatment in this study were not enough to observe significant changes in the laryngopharyngeal findings.

Currently, only the patients with obvious laryngopharyngeal abnormalities were recruited to the prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled studies on the effect of PPI on symptom improvement [9, 10]. In Lam’s report, there were no significant differences in laryngopharyngeal findings between the PPI and placebo groups, suggesting that the improvement in laryngeal signs might not lead to significant improvement in patient symptoms. In other words, laryngeal signs may not correlate faithfully with actual improvement in LPRS. It may be possible to postulate that the effect of PPI is not limited to the patients with obvious laryngopharyngeal abnormalities. The correlation between laryngopharyngeal symptoms and signs would need further studies. Because the precise diagnosis of LPR is still difficult, it is of critical importance to identify morphologic or physiologic features more specific for LPR.

5. Conclusions

The low pretreatment total score of the Japanese patients with LPRS suggested that most of them had only mild objective laryngeal signs. In LPRS patients with a high endoscopic laryngeal score, a significant decrease in total score was observed after acid suppression therapy.

Appendix

Fifteen otolaryngologists who evaluated endoscopic laryngeal images: Nobuhiko Oridate, Yasushi Mesuda, Masanobu Suzuki (Hokkaido University Hospital), Tomoko Shintani, Etsuko Kanaizumi (Sapporo Medical University Hospital), Aya Maruko (Jusendo Hospital), Yusuke Watanabe (International University of Health and Welfare Mita Hospital), Ryoji Tokashiki (Tokyo Medical University Hospital), Yuki Hamashima, Masanori Yoshioka (Nagoya City University Hospital), Kiyoto Hosokawa (Kansai Rousai Hospital), Aki Taguchi (Ehime University Hospital), Rieko Gotoh, Kanako Indoh (Kagawa University Hospital), and Misako Yamamoto (Sanuki Municipal Hospital).

Acknowledgment

This study was partially supported by Eisai Co., Ltd.

References

  1. N. Vakil, S. V. van Zanten, P. Kahrilas et al., “The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 101, no. 8, pp. 1900–1920, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. C. N. Ford, “Evaluation and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 294, no. 12, pp. 1534–1540, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. F. Vaezi, D. M. Hicks, T. I. Abelson, and J. E. Richter, “Laryngeal signs and symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a critical assessment of cause and effect association,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 333–344, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. R. C. Branski, N. Bhattacharyya, and J. Shapiro, “The reliability of the assessment of endoscopic laryngeal findings associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease,” Laryngoscope, vol. 112, no. 6, pp. 1019–1024, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  5. P. C. Belafsky, G. N. Postma, and J. A. Koufman, “The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS),” Laryngoscope, vol. 111, no. 8, pp. 1313–1317, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  6. S. R. Vavricka, C. A. Storck, S. M. Wildi et al., “Limited diagnostic value of laryngopharyngeal lesions in patients with gastroesophageal reflux during routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 716–722, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. J. A. Koufman, “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, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 1–7, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  8. J. E. Richter and D. M. Hicks, “Unresolved issues in gastroesophageal reflux-related ear, nose, and throat problems,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 92, no. 12, pp. 2143–2144, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  9. P. K. Y. Lam, M. L. Ng, T. K. Cheung et al., “Rabeprazole is effective in treating laryngopharyngeal reflux in a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 770–776, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. O. Reichel, H. Dressel, K. Wiederänders, and W. J. Issing, “Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with esomeprazole for symptoms and signs associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 139, no. 3, pp. 414–420, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Nobuhiko Oridate et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

1683 Views | 834 Downloads | 8 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.