Lukas Horvath1, Patricia Hagmann2, Emanuel Burri2, Marcel Kraft3. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal and University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland. 3. HNO-Zentrum beider Basel, Münchenstein, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common condition in daily practice, no gold standard exists for its diagnosis. The objective of this study was to establish a simple and reliable scoring system for evaluating LPR consisting of both subjective and objective criteria. METHODS: This retrospective study includes 124 patients presenting with symptoms of LPR. In all patients, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH monitoring (PHM) and transnasal oesophagoscopy (TNE) were performed and rated in a special scoring system. RESULTS: A Horvath Score of 4-5 for severe LPR was found in 76 patients (61%), a score of 2-3 for non-severe LPR in 38 patients (31%) and a score of 0-1 for non-existing LPR in 10 patients (8%) by combining the 4 validated diagnostic methods. CONCLUSION: The proposed scoring system qualifies as a simple and reliable tool for evaluating LPR in daily practice, directly impacting patient management.
OBJECTIVE: Although laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common condition in daily practice, no gold standard exists for its diagnosis. The objective of this study was to establish a simple and reliable scoring system for evaluating LPR consisting of both subjective and objective criteria. METHODS: This retrospective study includes 124 patients presenting with symptoms of LPR. In all patients, reflux symptom index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), oropharyngeal pH monitoring (PHM) and transnasal oesophagoscopy (TNE) were performed and rated in a special scoring system. RESULTS: A Horvath Score of 4-5 for severe LPR was found in 76 patients (61%), a score of 2-3 for non-severe LPR in 38 patients (31%) and a score of 0-1 for non-existing LPR in 10 patients (8%) by combining the 4 validated diagnostic methods. CONCLUSION: The proposed scoring system qualifies as a simple and reliable tool for evaluating LPR in daily practice, directly impacting patient management.