Relationship between history, laryngoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with typical GERD

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorVardar, Rukiye
dc.contributor.authorVaris, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorBayrakci, Berna
dc.contributor.authorAkyildiz, Serdar
dc.contributor.authorKirazli, Tayfun
dc.contributor.authorBor, Serhat
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T21:34:48Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T21:34:48Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe techniques used in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have insufficient specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and laryngological examination in the diagnosis of LPR. A total of 684 diagnosed GERD and suspected LPR patients were prospectively scored by the reflux finding score (RFS) which was suggested by Koufman. A total of 484 patients with GERD who had RFS a parts per thousand yen7 were accepted as having LPR. 248 patients with GERD plus LPR on whom an endoscopic examination was performed were evaluated. As a control group, results from 82 patients with GERD who had RFS < 7 were available for comparison. The GERD symptom score (RSS) was counted according to the existence of symptoms (heartburn/regurgitation) and frequency, duration, and severity. The reflux symptom index (RSI) suggested by Belafsky et al. was also evaluated. The relationship between esophageal endoscopic findings, RSS, RFS and RSI was investigated. Mean age was 46 +/- A 12 (19-80). The mean values of RSS, RFS, and RSI were 18.9 +/- A 7.7, 10 +/- A 2.2, 16.6 +/- A 11.9, respectively. Erosive esophagitis was detected in 75 cases (30%). Hiatus hernia was observed in 32 patients (13%). There was no correlation between RSS and RFS, RSI. The severity of esophagitis did not correlate with the severity of the laryngeal findings. LPR should be suspected when the history and laryngoscopy findings are suggestive of the diagnosis. EGD has no role in the diagnosis of LPR.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00405-011-1748-yen_US
dc.identifier.endpage191en_US
dc.identifier.issn0937-4477
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21881998en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage187en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1748-y
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/45693
dc.identifier.volume269en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000298655300028en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectLaryngopharyngeal refluxen_US
dc.subjectReflux finding scoreen_US
dc.subjectEsophagogastroduodenoscopyen_US
dc.titleRelationship between history, laryngoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with typical GERDen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu