Jerome R Lechien1,2,3,4,5, Francois Bobin1,6, Vinciane Muls1,7, Pierre Eisendrath7, Mihaela Horoi3, Marie-Paule Thill3, Didier Dequanter1,3, Jean-Pierre Durdurez3, Alexandra Rodriguez1,3, Sven Saussez1,2,3. 1. Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Study Group of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS). 2. Laboratory of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, CHU de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-Pierre, School of Medicine. 4. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille. 5. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, University of Paris Saclay, Poitiers, France. 6. Polyclinique Elsan de Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 7. the Department of gastroenterology, CHU Saint-Pierre, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical features and the therapeutic response of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients with or without gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Patients with LPR symptoms were enrolled from three European Hospitals. The diagnosis of LPR and GERD was made through impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH). A gastrointestinal endoscopy was realized in patients with digestive complaints or ≥60 years old. The 3- to 6-month treatment was based on the association of diet, pantoprazole, alginate, and magaldrate regarding the MII-pH characteristics. Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA) were used to evaluate the clinical evolution throughout treatment. The gastrointestinal endoscopy findings, clinical features, and therapeutic response were compared between patients with LPR and GERD (LPR/GERD) and patients with LPR. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven LPR patients were included, 54 being LPR/GERD. LPR/GERD patients had a higher number of proximal reflux episodes compared with LPR patients. The prevalence of esophagitis, hernia hiatal, and lower esophageal sphincter insufficiency did not differ between groups. The presence of GERD was strongly associated with acid LPR. Patients without GERD had a higher proportion of nonacid and mixed LPR compared with LPR/GERD patients. The pre- to posttreatment evolutions of RSS and RSA were quite similar in both groups, with the exception of the 3- to 6-month improvement of digestive symptoms, which was better in LPR/GERD group. The therapeutic success rates were 79.6% and 77.2% in GERD/LPR and LPR group, respectively. CONCLUSION: GERD is predictive of acid LPR. The clinical evolution and the therapeutic response rates were quite similar in both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130: E479-E489, 2020.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical features and the therapeutic response of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) patients with or without gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS:Patients with LPR symptoms were enrolled from three European Hospitals. The diagnosis of LPR and GERD was made through impedance-pH monitoring (MII-pH). A gastrointestinal endoscopy was realized in patients with digestive complaints or ≥60 years old. The 3- to 6-month treatment was based on the association of diet, pantoprazole, alginate, and magaldrate regarding the MII-pH characteristics. Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and Reflux Sign Assessment (RSA) were used to evaluate the clinical evolution throughout treatment. The gastrointestinal endoscopy findings, clinical features, and therapeutic response were compared between patients with LPR and GERD (LPR/GERD) and patients with LPR. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven LPR patients were included, 54 being LPR/GERD. LPR/GERDpatients had a higher number of proximal reflux episodes compared with LPR patients. The prevalence of esophagitis, hernia hiatal, and lower esophageal sphincter insufficiency did not differ between groups. The presence of GERD was strongly associated with acid LPR. Patients without GERD had a higher proportion of nonacid and mixed LPR compared with LPR/GERDpatients. The pre- to posttreatment evolutions of RSS and RSA were quite similar in both groups, with the exception of the 3- to 6-month improvement of digestive symptoms, which was better in LPR/GERD group. The therapeutic success rates were 79.6% and 77.2% in GERD/LPR and LPR group, respectively. CONCLUSION:GERD is predictive of acid LPR. The clinical evolution and the therapeutic response rates were quite similar in both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130: E479-E489, 2020.
Authors: Lee M Akst; Jonathan M Bock; Jerome R Lechien; Thomas L Carroll; Jacqueline E Allen; Tareck Ayad; Necati Enver; Young-Gyu Eun; Paulo S Perazzo; Fabio Pupo Ceccon; Geraldo D Sant'Anna; Rui Imamura; Sampath Kumar Raghunandhan; Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba; Christian Calvo-Henriquez; Sven Saussez; Petros D Karkos; Marc Remacle Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Anaïs Rameau; Lisa G De Marrez; Gautier Le Bosse; Karina Negro; Andra Sebestyen; Robin Baudouin; Sven Saussez; Stéphane Hans Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Christian Calvo-Henriquez; Miguel Mayo-Yanez; Mariam El Ayoubi; Luigi A Vaira; Antonino Maniacci Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Alexandra Rodriguez; Stéphane Hans; Jerome R Lechien; Sven Saussez; Géraldine Nowak; Lise Crevier-Buchman; Marta P Circiu Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Sydney R A Korsunsky; Leonel Camejo; Diep Nguyen; Rahul Mhaskar; Khattiya Chharath; Joy Gaziano; Joel Richter; Vic Velanovich Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Rena Yadlapati; Alexander M Kaizer; Daniel R Sikavi; Madeline Greytak; Jennifer X Cai; Thomas L Carroll; Samir Gupta; Sachin Wani; Paul Menard-Katcher; Tsung-Chin Wu; Philip Weissbrod; Andrew M Vahabzadeh-Hagh; John E Pandolfino; Walter W Chan Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Sven Saussez; Vinciane Muls; Maria R Barillari; Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba; Stéphane Hans; Petros D Karkos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.241