Refluxo laringofaringeano: estudo prospectivo correlacionando achados laringoscópicos precoces com a phmanometria de 24 horas de 2 canais

Marambaia, O.; Andrade, N. A.; Varela, Deborah; Juncal, M.

doi:10.1590/s0034-72992002000400012

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pathologic gastroesophageal reflux was demonstrated by prolonged esophageal pHmetry in 88% of GERD patients with dysphonia, similar to levels found by other researchers (17,31) . In the control group (without dysphonia), the exam positivity was 56%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and vocal disturbances

Henry

Martins

Lerco

et al. 2011

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a chronic disease in which gastroduodenal contents reflux into the esophagus. The clinical picture of gastroesophageal reflux disease is usually composed by heartburn and regurgitation (typical manifestations). Atypical manifestations (vocal disturbances and asthma) may also be complaint. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the clinical, endoscopic, manometric and pHmetric aspects of patients suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease associated with vocal disturbances. METHODS: Fifty patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease were studied, including 25 with vocal disturbances (group 1 - G1) and 25 without these symptoms (group 2 - G2). All patients were submitted to endoscopy, manometry and esophageal pHmetry (2 probes). The group 1 patients were submitted to videolaryngoscopy. RESULTS: Endoscopic findings: non-erosive reflux disease was observed in 95% of G1 patients and 88% of G2. Videolaryngoscopy: vocal fold congestion, asymmetry, nodules and polyps were observed in G1 patients. Manometric findings: pressure in the lower esophageal sphincter (mm Hg): 11.6 ± 5.2 in G1 and 14.0 ± 6.2 in G2 (P = 0.14); pressure in the upper esophageal sphincter (mm Hg): 58.4 ± 15.9 in G1 and 69.5 ± 30.7 in the controls. pHmetric findings: De Meester index: 34.0 ± 20.9 in G1 and 15.4 ± 9.4 in G2 (P<0.001); number of reflux episodes in distal probe: 43.0 ± 20.4 in G1 and 26.4 ± 17.2 in G2 (P = 0.003); percentage of time with esophageal pH value lower than 4 units (distal sensor): 9.0% ± 6.4% in G1 and 3.4% ± 2.1% in G2 (P<0.001); number of reflux episodes in proximal probe: 7.5 ± 10.9 in G1 and 5.3 ± 5.7 in G2 (P = 0.38); percentage of time with esophageal pH values lower than 4 units (Proximal probe): 1.2 ± 2.7 in G1 and 0.5 ± 0.7 in G2 (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: 1) The clinical, endoscopic, and manometric findings observed in patients with vocal disturbance do not differ from those without these symptoms; 2) gastroesophageal reflux intensity is higher in patients with vocal disturbance; 3) patients without vocal disturbance can also present reflux episodes in the proximal probe.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and vocal disturbances

Henry

Martins

Lerco

et al. 2011

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This prevalence was in accordance with the findings of Marambaia et al, who observed alterations in pH-metry in 83.6% of individuals with LPR. 23 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Reflux Symptom Index and the Endolaryngeal Findings Scale after Treatment in Individuals with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Silva

Duprat

Machado

et al. 2020

Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent condition in outpatients visiting the otorhinolaryngological clinic, with many controversies regarding its diagnosis and follow-up. Therefore, there is a need for clinical instruments that can diagnose individuals and monitor the results of their treatment. Objective To evaluate the applicability of the scores translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese: Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Endolaryngeal Reflux Findings Scale (ERFS), as instruments for post-treatment follow-up of LPR. Method A total of 35 individuals with atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and with an objective diagnosis of LPR, confirmed by high digestive endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal pH-metry dual probe test were submitted to the RSI and ERFS questionnaires, used in the pre- and post-treatment of 90 days with a Proton Pump Inhibitor. Result The evaluation of RSI and ERFS in the pre- and post-treatment showed a reduction in the results of the two scores, with a higher drop in the RSI (p < 0.001) than in the ERFS (p = 0.014). Although there was an improvement in the values in 23.9% of the individuals in the ERFS, there was no change in the category (p = 0.057), different from the RSI (p < 0.001), where there was a 67.4% improvement in values, as well as change in category (score went from positive to negative). There was a correlation between RSI and ERFS, moderate in the pretreatment and strong in the post-treatment. Conclusion The RSI and ERFS scores, when translated and adapted for Brazilian Portuguese and applied simultaneously, can be considered a good tool for post-treatment LPR follow-up.

show abstract