Zhen Gooi1, Stacey L Ishman2, Jonathan M Bock3, Joel H Blumin3, Lee M Akst4. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 3. Department of Otolaryngology & Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA lakst1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe current patterns for diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and analyze differences between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. METHODS: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Broncho-Esophagological Association members were invited to complete an online survey regarding evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of LPR. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify differences between respondents who completed laryngology fellowships (LF) and those who did not (NL). RESULTS: Of 159 respondents, 40 were LF. Video documentation of laryngopharyngeal exams was almost universal among LF (97% vs 38%, P < .0001). Use of rigid (100%, P = .002) and flexible distal-chip technologies (94%, P = .004) was more common among LF. Diagnostic criteria were similar between the groups, with symptoms of heartburn, globus, and throat clearing thought most suggestive of LPR. Adjunctive tests most commonly used were barium esophagram and dual-probe pH testing with impedance. Laryngology fellowship-trained respondents used dual pH probes with impedance more often (P = .004). They were more likely to prescribe twice daily proton pump inhibitors with concurrent H2-blocker medication initially (P = .004) and to treat for longer than 4 weeks (P = .0003). CONCLUSION: Otolaryngologists are in agreement on symptoms and physical features of LPR; however, significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists on the use of adjunctive testing and treatment strategies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe current patterns for diagnosis and treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and analyze differences between laryngologists and non-laryngologists. METHODS: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and American Broncho-Esophagological Association members were invited to complete an online survey regarding evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of LPR. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify differences between respondents who completed laryngology fellowships (LF) and those who did not (NL). RESULTS: Of 159 respondents, 40 were LF. Video documentation of laryngopharyngeal exams was almost universal among LF (97% vs 38%, P < .0001). Use of rigid (100%, P = .002) and flexible distal-chip technologies (94%, P = .004) was more common among LF. Diagnostic criteria were similar between the groups, with symptoms of heartburn, globus, and throat clearing thought most suggestive of LPR. Adjunctive tests most commonly used were barium esophagram and dual-probe pH testing with impedance. Laryngology fellowship-trained respondents used dual pH probes with impedance more often (P = .004). They were more likely to prescribe twice daily proton pump inhibitors with concurrent H2-blocker medication initially (P = .004) and to treat for longer than 4 weeks (P = .0003). CONCLUSION: Otolaryngologists are in agreement on symptoms and physical features of LPR; however, significant differences exist between laryngologists and non-laryngologists on the use of adjunctive testing and treatment strategies.