Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Approach Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: An Otolaryngology Perspective

  • Esophagus (JO Clarke, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the otolaryngology practice, there is a rising concern with the current diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The implication of LPR in many common head and neck symptoms, along with the rising cost of empiric therapy and no overall improvement in patient symptoms, has established a need to review what are indeed laryngopharyngeal complaints secondary to reflux and what are not. This article reviews the otolaryngologist’s approach to LPR, the various ways diagnosis is made, and the guidelines that inform the current trends in otolaryngology management of LPR. The goal of this article is to recognize that reflux can be the cause of a variety of laryngopharyngeal complaints seen within an otolaryngology practice, but when empiric therapy does not improve symptoms, consideration should be given to other non-reflux causes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Gregory N. Postma, M.D. and Stacey L. Halum. Laryngeal and pharyngeal complications of gastroesophageal reflux disease. GI Motility online (2006). 16 May 2006

  2. Book DT et al. Perspectives in laryngopharyngeal reflux: an international survey. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:1399–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koufman JA et al. Prevalence in reflux in 113 consecutive patients with laryngeal and voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123:385–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Connor NP et al. Symptoms of extraesophageal reflux in a community-dwelling sample. J Voice. 2007;21(2):189–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reulbach TR et al. Occult laryngeal pathology in a community-based cohort. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;124:448–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koufman JA et al. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: position statement of the committee on speech, voice and swallowing disorders of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;217(1):32–5. Landmark paper establishing a position statement amongst Otolaryngologists with regards to diagnosis and management of LPR.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Francis DO et al. High economic burden of caring for patients with suspected extraesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(6):905–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Altman KW et al. Changing impact of gastroesophageal reflux in medical and otolaryngology practice. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:1145–53. Study describing the epidemiology of LPR, including cost and economic burden of treatment in otolaryngology practices.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnston D et al. Receptor-mediated uptake of pepsin by laryngeal epithelial cells. Ann Otl Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116(12):934–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Samuels TL. Pepsin as a causal agent of inflammation during nonacidic reflux. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141(5):559–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnston N. Pepsin in nonacidic reflux can damage hypopharyngeal epithelial cells. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118(9):677–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnston N. Rationale for targeting pepsin in the treatment of reflux disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2010;119(8):547–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Balefsky PC. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice. 2002;16(2):274–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Postma GN. Ambulatory pH monitoring methodology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2000;109 Suppl 184:10–4.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Balefsky PC. The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope. 2001;111(8):1313–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang BA. The reliability of the reflux finding score among general otolaryngologists. J Voice. 2015;29(5):572–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Singendonk M. OP-5 interobserver validity of the reflux finding score for infants in flexible versus rigid laryngoscopy. J Pediatr Gasteroenterol Nutr. 2015;61(4):510–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hicks DM et al. The prevalence of hypopharynx findings associated with gastroesophageal reflux in normal volunteers. J Voice. 2002;16:564–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Milstein CF et al. Prevalence of laryngeal irritation signs associated with reflux in asymptomatic volunteers: impact of endoscopic technique (rigid vs. flexible laryngoscope). Laryngoscope. 2005;115(12):2256–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Branski R et al. Diagnostic accuracy of history, laryngoscopy, and stroboscopy. Laryngoscope. 2012;123:215–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karkos PD, Wilson JA, et al. Empiric treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux with proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review. Laryngoscope. 2006;116:144–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Reichel O et al. Double blinded placebo-controlled trial with esomeprazole for symptoms and signs associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Otolaryngol HNS. 2008;139:414–20.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Park W et al. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: prospective cohort study evaluating optimal dose of proton-pump inhibitor therapy and pretherapy predictors of response. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:1230–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jin BJ et al. Change of acoustic parameters before and after treatment in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:938–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Noordzji JP et al. Correlation of pH probe-measured laryngopharyngeal reflux with symptoms and signs of reflux laryngitis. Laryngoscope. 2002;112:2191–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hamdan L et al. Effect of aggressive therapy on laryngeal symptoms and voice characteristics in patients with gastroesophageal reflux. Acta Otolaryngol. 2001;121:868–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Qadeer MA et al. Proton pump inhibitor therapy for suspected GERD-related chronic laryngitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroentol. 2006;101:2646–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Heidelbaugh JJ. Proton pump inhibitors: are they overutilised in clinical practice and do they pose significant risk? Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(6):582–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chandler B et al. 24 versus 48-hour Bravo pH monitoring. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hirano R et al. ACG Practice Guidelines: Esophageal Reflux testing. Am J Gastro. 2007;102:668–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. DeMeester TR. A new technique for measurement of pharyngeal pH: Normal values and discriminating pH threshold. J Gastro Surg. 2009;12:1422–39.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Friedman M. Impact of pH monitoring on laryngopharyngeal reflux treatment: improved compliance and symptom resolution. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144(4):558–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Muderris T. The clinical value of pharyngeal pH monitoring using a double-probe, triple-sensor catheter in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Arch Oto-HNS. 2009;135:163–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wiener GJ. Oropharyngeal pH monitoring for the detection of liquid and aerosolized supraesophageal gastric reflux. J Voice. 2009;23(4):498–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sharma N. An analysis of persistent symptoms in acid-suppressed patients undergoing impedance pH monitoring. Clinc Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(5):521–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Klein et al. Preliminary Comparison of an oropharyngeal aerosolized pH probe and a standard dual pH probe for diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Presented at the Annual Combine Otolaryngologic Spring Meeting (COSM) at the American Bronchoesophagological Association (ABEA) section 2007.

  37. Knight J. Sensitive pepsin immunoassay for detection of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope. 2005;115(8):1473–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wassenaar E. Pepsin detection in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux before and after fundoplication. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(12):3870–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hayat JO. Pepsin in saliva for the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Gut. 2015;64(3):373–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gooi Z, Ishman SL, Bock JM, Blumin JH, Akst LM. Changing patterns in reflux care: 10-year comparison of ABEA members. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124:940–6. One of the largest surveys evaluating multiple variables in the current practice patterns on LPR management.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gooi Z, Ishman SL, Bock JM, Blumin JH, Akst LM. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: paradigms for evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014;123(10):677–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sulica L. Hoarseness misattributed to reflux: sources and patterns of error. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014;123(6):442–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwartz SR, Cohen SM, Dailey SH, et al. Clinical practice guidelines: hoarseness (dysphonia). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141:S1–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kahrilas P, Shaheen N, Vaezi M. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Katz P, Gerson L, Vela M. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:308–28. The most recent guidelines that revisit the role of empiric PPI therapy in extraesophageal GERD.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Division of Laryngology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Vaninder K. Dhillon & Lee M. Akst

Authors
  1. Vaninder K. Dhillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee M. Akst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee M. Akst.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

VKD and LMA declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Esophagus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dhillon, V.K., Akst, L.M. How to Approach Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: An Otolaryngology Perspective. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 18, 44 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-016-0515-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-016-0515-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation