LARYNGOPHARYNGEAL REFLUX:

TITLE: Laryngopharyngeal<= /span> Reflux With An Emphasis On Diagnostic = And Therapeutic Considerations
SOURCE: Grand Rounds Presentation, UTMB, Dept. of Otolaryngology
DATE: August 25, 2009
RESIDENT PHYSICIAN: = Viet Pham, MD
FACULTY PHYSICIAN: = Michael Underbrink, MD, MBA
DISCUSSANT: = Michael Underbrink, MD, MBA (Revised)
SERIES EDITORS: Francis B. Quinn, Jr., MD
ARCHIVIST: Melinda Stoner Qui= nn, MS(ICS)

"This material was prepared by resident physicians in partial fulfillment of educational requirements established for the Postgra= duate Training Program of the UTMB Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Sur= gery and was not intended for clinical use in its present form. It was prepared = for the purpose of stimulating group discussion in a conference setting. No warranties, either express or implied, are made with r= espect to its accuracy, completeness, or timeliness. The material does not necessa= rily reflect the current or past opinions of members of the UTMB faculty and sho= uld not be used for purposes of diagnosis or treatment without consulting appropriate literature sources and informed professional opinion."

Note: missing Table Data ca= n be seen in the .PDF version.

INTRODUCTION

First coined by Kaufman in 1981, laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has also been recognized under other aliases including extraesophageal reflux, reflux laryngitis, and poster= ior laryngitis. LPR has been post= ulated to play a role in up to 50% of laryngeal complaints that present in an otolaryngological practice. It has increasingly become an enti= ty that more otolaryngologists are evaluating and treating in their practice.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A closer examination reveals that = there is a bit of controversy regarding this medical condition stemming from the = fact that there are no set diagnostic guidelines, and yet, physicians continue to offer treatment as an established pathological process. The purpose of this writing is to = review key characteristics of LPR and to discuss current diagnostic modalities and therapeutic options with a particular acknowledgement of the controversy inherent with them.

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

LPR refers to the backflow of gastric contents i= nto the larynx, pharynx, and upper aerodigestive tract. In a normal individual= , the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) work = together to prevent reflux of such contents up the esophagus. Thus, the primary pathological eve= nt in LPR revolves around UES dysfunction. Comprised of the cricopharyngeus, thyropharyngeus, and proximal cervical esophagus, the= UES attaches to the thyroid and cricoid cartilages = and forms a C-shaped sling that wraps around the cervical esophagus with innervation from the pharyngeal plexus, a network of = nerves composed of contributions from the superior and recurrent laryngeal nerves,= glossopharyngeal nerve, and symp= athetics from the superior cervical ganglion. When the UES allows refluxate to make co= ntact with the laryngopharyngeal segment, the gastric= acid and activated pepsin causes direct damage to the laryngeal mucosa. This result= s in impaired mucociliary clearance, leading to mucus stasis which further exacerbates the mucosal irritation and contributes to patient symptoms such as postnasal drip, throat clearing, and a globus sensation.

UES dysfunction is not the sole etiology behind = LPR as some studies have uncovered a biochemical aspect, noting a correlation betw= een LPR and a depletion of the carbonic anhydrase <= span class=3DSpellE>isoenzyme-III (CA-III) in addition to the presence of pepsin in histological analysis of laryngeal tissues affected by LPR. Decreased levels of CA-III, which = may be associated with elevated concentrations of pepsin, are important to conside= r as this condition translates to decreased amounts of bicarbonate anions presen= t to neutralize the acidic nature of gastric contents, and subsequently, there is less chemical buffer to protect laryngeal mucosa.

FEATURES

Individuals with LPR often present with nonspeci= fic complaints, but there is a set of symptoms that physicians have commonly fo= und among this group of patients as listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Key Symptoms of LPR

· &nbs= p; Cervical dysphagia=

· &nbs= p; Chronic cough

· &nbs= p; Dysphonia=

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Globus= sensa= tion

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Hoarseness<= /span>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Sore throat=

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Throat clearing

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Upright reflux (“daytime reflux”)

<= /p>

This is not meant to be an exclusive list as LPR may manifest with other symptoms such as asthma exacerbations, otalgia, excessive throat mucus, halitosis, neck pain, odynophagia<= /span>, postnasal drip, and voice complaints. Such symptoms, however, are also nonspecific and extend along a broad range that can be seen in other medical conditions. Conversely, this same list should = not be treated as an inclusive one, either, as not all patients who experience LPR will be afflicted with all of the aforementioned symptoms.

One of the most important aspects to ascertaining whether or not the etiology to a patient's complaints is related to LPR is distinguishing them from symptoms classically experienced in those suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GERD typically manifests with hear= tburn, regurgitation, and reflux when laying supine. Consequently, the incidence of esophagitis and Barrett's dysplasia is higher with th= is condition than with LPR. Dysphagia may also be encountered, but voice and respiratory problems are less common compared to LPR. Otolaryngologists must clearly elu= cidate these differences to their patients because many of those with LPR may expr= ess frustration and denial of their diagnosis because they mistakenly associate= the "reflux" aspect of LPR with that found in GERD.

LPR encompasses a myriad of nonspecific physical= exam findings specifically revolving around erythema= and edema. Hallmark features incl= ude interarytenoid erythema a= nd edema, infraglottic edema, and ventricular effacement. The aforementione= d interarytenoid changes are often found with similar c= hanges to the posterior commissure, all of which are commonly grouped together under the term, posterior laryngitis. Infraglottic<= /span> edema may also be known as pseudosulcus vocalis, describing the illusion of what appears to b= e a second set of vocal folds just inferior to the true vocal folds. As the true and false vocal folds = swell in response to refluxate exposure, the clear and distinct borders of the ventricles appear obscured, described as ventricular effacement. Granularity and a cobblestone appearance to the laryngeal mucosa, otherwise known as pachydermia, may also be noted in LPR. Similarly, contact ulcers, granulomas, scarring, and stenos= is may also be encountered. It h= as been shown that the presence of pachydermia alo= ne, however, is not pathonomonic of LPR. On the other hand, contact ulcers = and granulomas have been found to be highly indicative of= LPR.

There are a number of other medical conditions t= hat LPR has been thought to contribute to, and thus, raises the importance in managing LPR before such potential complications arise. A number of these processes are li= sted in Table 2.

Table 2. Medical Conditions Associated with LPR

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Asthma

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Bronch= iectasis<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Cervical dysphagia

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Chronic cough

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Chronic = dysphonia

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Chronic laryngitis=

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Dental caries

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Granul= oma<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Laryngeal carcinoma

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Laryngeal papilloma

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Laryng= omalacia<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Laryng= ospasm<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Laryng= otracheal stenosis

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Obstructive sleep apnea<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Otitis= media=

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Paradoxical vocal-fold motion disorder

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Recurrent croup

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Reinke= ’s edema=

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Ulceration<= /span>

LPR may present with similar symptoms and related medical sequelae in the pediatric population as= in adults, but children may also experience other problems such as feeding difficulties and anorexia, nasal obstruction or rhinor= rhea, otitis media, recurrent upper respiratory infec= tions, sleeping disorders, and subglottic stenosis. There are a variety of other pathologies affiliated with pediatric LPR, but that = is beyond the scope of this text.

DIAGNOSTICS

At the time of this writing, there are no set guidelines for a definitive diagnosis of LPR. Much of the literature considers ambulatory 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring as the current diagnostic standard. This study entails measuring the pH in the proximal and distal esophageal regions. A positive event is defined as a p= H-drop in the proximal probe accompanied by a simultaneous decrease in the distal one. Although there does not = appear to be a significant difference in results between sedated and unsedated individuals, dual-probe pH studies are susceptible to false positives that require manual correction.

Impedence s= tudies are one developing technological advance that expands on the principles beh= ind pH monitoring. This technique involves arranging multiple electrode pairs on a pH-probe-type catheter cap= able of tracking retrograde bolus transits suggestive of reflux. Some physicians advocate impedence studies over pH monitoring due to its abili= ty to measure acidic and nonacidic events as opposed = to the sole detection of acidic events that dual-probe pH monitoring provides.

Such s= tudies are considered invasive, costly, and uncomfortable, and they are not availa= ble to all institutions. In an at= tempt to provide a simpler, validated objective diagnostic tool, Belafsky et al (2001) developed the Reflux Finding Score (RFS). The RFS serves as a scoring tool t= hat grades eight specific physical exam findings that may be attributed to LPR. Some of the components a= re scored as whether or not they are present while others are graded in regard= s to its severity. The RFS can ran= ge from 0 to 26, and the authors concluded that a score greater than 7 suggest= ed a 95% statistical likelihood of a positive dual-probe pH study. This is also applicable for asympt= omatic patients. The components of t= he RFS are depicted in Figure 1.

<= ![endif]>

Figure 1. RFS Components

&= nbsp; To supplement the diagnostic value of the RFS, Belafsky et al (2002) developed the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). The RSI = was created with the intention to serve as a validated self-administered 9-ques= tion survey administered to patients who graded specific symptoms on a scale fro= m 0 to 5. Similar to the RFS, a R= SI score greater than 13 was found to suggest a pos= itive dual-probe pH study. In addit= ion, the authors had noted that RSI scores tended to decrease before actual phys= ical exam improvements were noted with effective medical management. A depiction of the RSI is presente= d in Figure 2.

<= ![endif]>

Figure 2. RSI

The RFS and RSI are not the sole clinical diagno= stic tools available to evaluating LPR. Beaver et al (2003) had engendered a scoring system similar in nature to the RFS with the Laryngopharyngeal Re= flux Disease Index (LPRDI) to be used in conjunction with v= ideostroboscopy. Out of twelve specific physical ex= am findings, the LPRDI was found to be more useful in assessing for LPR with regards to erythema and edema of the supraglottic, glottic, an= d subglottic regions.&= nbsp; Other criteria such as leukoplakia, nodu= les, polyps, posterior pachydermia, webs, and contac= t granulomas were not found to be as reliable.

There are other tests that have been suggested as helpful in evaluating LPR. St= udies on them are small, and consequently, are not routinely recommended as part = of the initial workup. These opt= ions are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Additional Diagnostic Tools

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Acidification tests

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Bronch= oalveolar lavage

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Esopha= gogastro-duodenoscopy<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Esopha= gram<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Flexible endoscopic evaluatio= n of swallowing

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Manome= try<= /o:p>

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Mucosal biopsy

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Reflux scan=

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Reflux= ate analy= sis

&midd= ot; &nbs= p; Voice analysis

Mucosal biopsies have been notable for its abili= ty to measure the concentration of pepsin and CA-III. A pepsin immunoassay being develop= ed has been postulated to be 100% sensitive and 89% specific for LPR (Knight et= al, 2005). S= pectrophotometric analysis of refluxate has garnered attention fo= r its potential to evaluate for bile and pancreatic enzymes, two biochemical compounds that may possibly aggravate the laryngeal mucosal damage incited = with LPR in addition to gastric acid and activated pepsin.

TREATMENT

Treatment options for LPR can be divided into th= ree main modalities: lifestyle modifications, pharmacological, and surgical. Lifestyle modifications are simila= r to changes suggested for individuals experiencing GERD. Patients should be instructed to a= void oral intake 2-3 hours prior to lying supine and to elevate the head of the bed. Elevation should be unde= rtaken with the placement of bed blocks as opposed to the use of additional pillows. In addition, patient= s are encouraged to sleep on their left side as the diaphragmatic crura is said to cause a natural kink in the gastroesophagea= l junction when a person is in the left lateral decubitu= s position. Weight loss is usua= lly helpful if symptoms of both LPR and GERD are present. Patients are educated to avoid alc= ohol, caffeine, carbonated beverages, chocolate, tobacco, and foods that are frie= d, spicy, or contain citrus as these factors have been noted to exacerbate ref= lux.

Antacids and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H= 2RA) were the mainstays of pharmacological therapy prior to the development of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in the 1980's. Aside from the symptomatic relief = that antacids afford against the acidic component of gastric refluxate, H2RA's were prescribed to combat a histamine-regulated nocturnal acid breakthrough (NAB) that is felt to further exacerbate symptoms due to LPR.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Early studies had concluded that t= he combination of H2RA and PPI therapy effectively controlled NAB only during = the initial part of treatment (Fackler et al, 2002), while later ones had suggested that there was an equivocal difference with the addition of H2RA to an established twice-daily PPI regimen (Ours <= i>et al, 2003).

PPI's are currently considered the cornerstone to pharmacological treatment of LPR. Its optimal effect exerted when taken 30-60 minutes prior to meals, PPI's reduce gastric acid production by blocking the gastric proton pump. While establishing the RFS and RSI= , Belafsky et al (2001) had observed that signif= icant physical exam improvements were noticeable after four months of twice-daily= PPI therapy. Other placebo-contro= lled studies have produced results that support the potential benefit garnered w= ith long-term PPI use. Despite a placebo-effect noted early in the course of treatment, Reichel et al (2008) revealed improvement to laryngeal symptoms and appearan= ce with twice-daily esomeprazole. In a similar manner, Noordzij et al (2001), El-Serag et al (200= 1), and Steward et al (2004) concluded that PPI therapy led to noticeable symptomatic relief even if associated physical exam signs were not as apparent. Furthermore, Wo et al (2006) reiterated the superiority of a twice-daily regimen over a once-daily one.

Performing a Nissen = fundoplication is the primary surgical option pursued= if medical management does not alleviate LPR in patients. Entailing the encirclement of the esophagus with the gastric fundus, fundoplication carries a 90% ten-year success rate in= those experiencing GERD. Available literature suggests a Nissen fundoplication may improve LPR-related signs and symptoms in 73-86%, although it should be= noted that there appears to be a poorer response to surgery in those who have fai= led four months of medical therapy--and yet, surgery is an option offered to th= ose who do not exhibit significant improvement under such conservative manageme= nt.

The accepted treatment protocol revolves around empirically treating suspected LPR, based on an appropriate history and physical along with associated elevated RSI and RFS scores, via a combinati= on of lifestyle modifications and twice-daily PPI with or without supplemental H2RA's. Follow-up is suggested after at least three months to assess for clinical changes. If patients report resolution to t= heir symptoms, the medications are typically weaned although typically less than= 10% of them will successfully remain asymptomatic after complete discontinuation. For a partial symptomatic response, an increase in the PPI dose is recommended followed by further assessment of interval improvement in another three months. Some otolaryngologists, on the oth= er hand, may prefer to start empiric treatment with the maximum dose in the fi= rst place and forego this step. A= poor response or even worsening of symptoms prompts the need to perform a more in-depth evaluation with ruling out other medical conditions that may manif= est with similar symptoms and conducting more invasive diagnostic tests includi= ng pH or impedence monitoring and esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Figure 3 outlines this treatment algorithm.

<= ![endif]>

Figure 3. Treatment Algorithm

CONTROVERSY

The nonspecific nature of symptoms and the lack = of set criteria for diagnosis leaves LPR susceptible to= a couple of foci of controversy. Although there are hallmark findings and symptoms associated with LP= R, not all patients will present with these complaints nor exhibit all of the classic features. Consequentl= y, these patients may be erroneously evaluated for allergies, asthma, sinusiti= s, smoking, and vocal abuse. In addition, up to 87% of healthy individuals have been noted to have at least= one LPR physical exam finding despite remaining asymptomatic. Conversely, Y= litalo et al (2001) had shown that some people possessed a benign laryngeal examination despite complaints indicative of reflux. Further compounding the problem po= sed by the absence of diagnostic guidelines, there is a poor level of inter-rater reliability which leads to a subjective diagnosis of LPR.

Despite currently being regarded as the gold-sta= ndard in diagnosing LPR, pH monitoring is not without its caveats. Positive pH studies have been reco= rded in approximately 70% of patients who presented with signs and symptoms comm= only encountered in LPR, and thus, implying that a negative pH study does not definitively rule out LPR. In= a similar manner, LPR events recorded on pH monitoring have been demonstrated= in up to 30% of asymptomatic individuals, albeit at significantly shorter acid exposure times compared to symptomatic patients.

Finally, there has been debate regarding the opt= imal placement of the proximal pH probe. This probe has classically been positioned past the UES with a posit= ive result defined as a pH drop to 4. Some physicians advocate placing the probe in the hypopharynx, maintaining that this location provides a more direct measurement of the laryngopharyngeal segment with a positive finding def= ined as a pH drop to 5. This asser= tion is countered with the argument that this position leaves the proximal probe susceptible to false-positives secondary to any drying that may occur as opposed to the moister environment of the proximal esophagus.

CONCLUSION

There is currently enough evidence to acknowledg= e a relationship between LPR and laryngeal symptoms, if not necessarily causality. It is important to= both the otolaryngologist and the patient to distinguish this condition as a separate entity apart from GERD although definitive diagnostic criteria have not yet been established. Whi= le with its inherent flaws, definitive diagnostic testing is expensive, invasi= ve, and not available at all institutions.&nbs= p; Once LPR is suspected, the mainstay of therapy involves empirically treating with appropriate lifestyle modifications and twice-daily PPI follo= wed by reassessing for symptomatic improvement.

Discussant’s Remarks: Dr. Michael Underbrink:

This was a good discussion on LPR, and there’s a= lot of controversial data in the literature, especially noticing the population= of patients that I see with nonspecific laryngeal complaints that don’t seem to fit into any category except LPR.

The concepts that I use in my practice when addressing= LPR are the use of the RFI and RFS. Remember, the RFS is pretty specific to videostroboscopy findings.

Sometimes you see some infraglott= ic edema or posterior commissure hypertrophy, and immediately diagnose LPR. The= re are some experts in the field that believe that posterior = commissure hypertrophy is a normal or non-specific finding on lar= yngoscopy.

There was a recent study by a Gastroenterologist from = the Mayo Clinic examining random people off the street without any symptoms of = LPR, and over 50% were found to have a finding of posterior commissure hypertrophy.

This finding may be useful, however if combined with o= ther signs of LPR, such as erythema and edema

For the RSI (Reflux Symptom Index), I give a questionn= aire to the patient that has been validated to correlate well with a positive pH probe, when scored above 13.

If I see three or more laryngeal findings with a posit= ive RSI, I go ahead and start them on b.i.d. PPI th= erapy for three months and then reassess the patient.

If they’re not improved by three months I think it’s time to get a gastroenterologist involved and investigate furthe= r, using impedence testing, or formal pH probe tes= ting.

Remember, sometimes patients are not compliant or can’t afford the medication.

My own experience is that most people with symptoms, w= ho do improve after three months of therapy, are very happy with the costs of this treatment regimen.

If you distill all the literature out there I think there’s certainly a place for empiric therapy for significant signs a= nd symptoms of LPR.

This was a very good talk. Thank you, Dr. Pham.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Baile= y BJ, Johnson, JT, Newlands SD. Head and Neck Surgery – Otolaryngology, Fou= rth Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 2006. pp. 759-60, 833-4, 909

Bauman = NM, et al. Value of pH probe testing in pediatric patients with extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disea= se: a retrospective review. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000; 109:S18.

Bauman = NM, et al. Reflex laryngospasm induced by stimulation of distal esophag= eal afferents. Laryngoscope 1994; 104:209. <= /p>

Beaver ME, et al. Diagnos= is of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease with digital imaging= . Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128:103.

Bela= fsky P, et al. Comparison of = data obtained from sedated versus unsedated wireless telemetry capsule placement. Laryngoscope 2005; 115:1109-13.

Bela= fsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Laryn= gopharyngeal reflux symptoms improve before changes in physical findings. Laryngoscope 2001; 111:979.

Bela= fsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. The validity and reliabili= ty of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 2001; 111:1313.=

Bela= fsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman KA. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice 2002; 16:274–277.

Bela= fsky PC, et al. Symptoms and = findings of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Ear Nose Throat J 2002; 81(suppl 2):10.

Bove MJ, Rosen C. Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease= .Curr Opin Otolaryngol He= ad Neck Surg 2006; 14:116-23.=

Bran= sky RC, Bhattacharyya N, Sha= piro J. The reliability of the assessment of endoscopic laryngeal findings associat= ed with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Laryngos= cope 2002; 112:1019-24.

de Cae= stecker J. Medical therapy for supraesophageal complica= tions of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Med 1997; 103:138S.

Celi= k M, = Ercan I. Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Curr Opin<= /span> Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 14:150-5.

Cool M, et al. Characteri= stics and clinical relevance of proximal esophageal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99:2317-23.

Coppe= r MP, et al. High incidence if laryngopharyngeal reflux = in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2000; 110:1007.

Deve= ney CW, Brenner K, = ;Cohen J. Gastroesophageal reflux and laryngeal diseas= e. Arch Surg 1993; 128:1021.<= /span>

Divi= V, = Benninger MS. Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Curr Opin<= /span> Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 14:124-7.

Eher= er AJ, et al. Effect of pantoprazole on the course of reflux-associated laryn= gitis: a placebo-controlled double-blind crossover study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003; 38:462-7.

El-S= erag HB, et al. Lansoprazole treatment of patients w= ith chronic idiopathic laryngitis:a placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 20= 01; 96:979-83.

Fack= ler WK, et al. Long-term eff= ect of H2RA therapy on nocturnal gastric acid breakthrough. Gastroenterology 2002; 122:625-32.

Fraser AG, Morton RP= , Gillibrand J. Presumed laryngoph= aryngeal reflux: investigate or treat?. J Laryngol Otol 2000; 114:441.

Gall= i J, et al. The role of acid and alkaline reflux in laryngeal squamous= cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2002; 112:1861.

Hanson DG, Jiang JJ. Diagnosis and management of chronic laryngitis associated with ref= lux. Am J Med 2000; 108:112S.

Hanso= n DG, Kamel PL, Kahrilas PJ. Outc= omes of antireflux therapy for the treatment of chronic laryn= gitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104:550–555.

Harrell S, et al. Design = and implementation of an ambulatory pH monitoring protocol in patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 2005; 115:89-92.

Havas TE, Priestley J,&nb= sp;Lowinger DS. A management strategy for v= ocal process granulomas. Laryngoscope 1999; 109:301.

Hicks= DM, et al. The prevalence of hypopharynx findings associat= ed with gastroesophageal reflux in normal voluntee= rs. J Voice 2002; 16:564-79.

Hinder RA, et al. The sur= gical option for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Med 1997; 103:144S.

Hoffman HT, et al. Vocal = process granuloma. Head Neck 2001; 23:1061.

Hogan WJ. Spectrum of supraesophageal complications of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Med 1997; 103:77S. =

Holland BW, et al. Laryngopharyngeal reflux and laryngeal web formation = in patients with pediatric recurrent respiratory papillom= as. Laryngoscope 2002; 112:1926.

Ing<= /span> AJ. Cough and gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Med 1997; 103:91S.=

Irwin= RS. Chro= nic cough due to gastroesophageal reflux. Chest 1993; 104:1511.

Johnston N, et al. Cell b= iology of laryngeal epithelial defenses in health and disease: futher studies. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 112:481-91.

Johnston N, et al. Pepsin= and carbonic anhydrase isoenzy= me III as diagnostic markers for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Laryngoscope 2004; 114:2129-34.

Kame= l PL, Hanson DG, = ;Kahrilas PJ. Outcomes of antireflux therapy for the treatment of chronic laryn= gitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 104:550. <= /span>

Kendall KA.<= /span> Controversies in the dia= gnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux dise= ase. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 14:113-5.

Kouf= man JA. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disea= se (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin= in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 1991; 101(suppl 53): 1–78.

Koufman JA, Amin MR, Panetti M. Prevalence of reflux in 113 consecutive patients with laryngeal and voice disorders. Oto= laryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123:385–388.

Kouf= man J, Aviv J, Casiano R, Shaw G. 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 July; 127:32–35.

Lewi= n JS, et al. Characterizat= ion of laryngopharyngeal reflux inpatients with premalignant= or early carcinomas of the larynx. Cancer 2003; 97:1010. =

Lindstrom DR, et al. Nissen fundoplication surgery for extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux (EER). Laryngoscope 2002; 112:1762.

Mahi= eu HF, Smit CF. Diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Curr= Opin Otolar= yngol Head Neck Surg 200; 14:133-7.=

Matthews BL, et al. Reflu= x in infants with laryngomalacia: results of 24-hour double-probe pH monitoring. Otolaryngol Head Ne= ck Surg 1999; 120:860.

McMurray JS, et al. Role = of laryngoscopy, dual pH probe monitoring and laryngeal mucosal biopsy in the diagnosis of pharyngoesophageal<= /span> reflux. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001; 110:299.

McNally PR, et al. Evalua= tion of gastroesophageal reflux as a cause of idiopathic hoarseness. Dig Dis Sci 1989; 34:1900.

Mera= ti AL, et al. Meta-analysis= of upper probe measurements in normal subjects and patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux..= Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005; 114:177-82.

Noor= dzij JP, et al. Evaluation of= omeprazole in the treatment of reflux laryngitis: a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study. Laryngosco= pe 2001; 111:2147-51.

Oels= chlager BK, et al. Typical GERD = symptoms and esophageal pH monitoring are not enough to diagnosis pharyngeal reflux.= J Surg Res 2005; 128:55-60.

Ours TM, et al. Nocturnal= acid breakthrough: clinical significance and correlation with esophageal acid exposure. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:545-50.

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

Peghini PL, et al. Nocturnal recove= ry of gastric acid secretion with twice daily dosing of proton pump inhibitors. A= m J Gastroenterol 1998; 93:763-7.

Poel= mans J, et al. The yield of u= pper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with suspected reflux related chronic ear, nose, and throat symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99:1419-26.

Pontes P Tiago R. Diagnos= is and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease.= Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 14:138-42.

Reav= is K, et al. Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms better predict the presence of esophageal adenocarcinoma than typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. = Ann of Surg 2004; 239:849-58.=

Reic= hel O, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with esomeprazole for symptoms and signs associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 2008; 139:414-20.=

Rema= cle M, Lawson G. Diagnosis a= nd management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease.= Curr Opin otolarngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 14:143-9.

Rival= R, et al. Role of gastroesophageal reflux disease in pati= ents with cervical symptoms. Otolaryngol Head Ne= ck Surg 1995; 113:364.

Schiller LR. Upper gastrointestinal motility disorders and respiratory symptoms. Am J Health Syst Pharm&n= bsp;1996; 53:S13.

Schroeder PL, et al. Dental erosion a= nd acid reflux disease. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:809. <= /span>

Sermo= n F, et al. Dig Liver Dis 2004; 36:105-110.=

Stav= roulaki P. Diagnostic and manage= ment problems of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease in children. Int J Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol 200= 6.

Steward DL, et al. Proton= pump inhibitor therapy for chronic laryngo-pharyngitis: a randomized placebo-control trial. Otolaryngol H= ead Neck Surg 2004; 131:342-50.

Sung MW, et al. Bile acid= induces cyclo-oxygenase-2 expression in cultured human pharyngeal cells: a possible mechanism of carcinogenesis in the upper aerodigestive= tract by laryngopharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:1059.

Tasker A, et al.<= /span> Is gastric reflux a caus= e of otitis media with effusion in children?. Laryngoscope 2002; 112:1930.

Tooh= ill RJ, Kuhn JC. Role of refluxed acid in pathogenesis of laryngeal disorders.= Am J Med 1997; 103:100S.

Ulua= lp S, Brodsky L. Nasal pain disrupting sleep as a presenting symptom of extraesoph= ageal acid reflux in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 69:1555-7.

Vaez= i MF, et al. Treatment of = chronic posterior laryngitis with esomeprazole. Laryngo= scope 2006; 116:254-60.

Vincent DA, et al. The pr= oximal probe in esophageal pH monitoring: development of a normative database. J V= oice 2000; 14:247-54.

Waln= er DL, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux in patients with subglottic stenosis. Arch= Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 124:551.

Ward PH, Hanson DG. Reflux as an etiological factor of carcinoma of the laryngopharynx. Laryngoscope 1988; 98:1195.

Waring JP, et al. Chronic cough= and hoarseness in patients with severe gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis Sci 1995; 40:1093.

Wo JM, et al. Double=3Dblin= d, placebo-controlled trial with single-dose pantoprazole= for laryngopharyngeal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:1972-8.

Ylitalo R, = Lindestad P, Ramel S. Symptoms, laryngeal findings, and 2= 4-hour pH monitoring I patients with suspected gastroesophago= -pharyngeal reflux. Laryngoscope 2001; 111:1735-41.

Ylit= alo R, = Ramel S. Extraesophagel reflux in patients with conta= ct granuloma: a prospective controlled study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002; 111:441-6.

Zalzal GH, Choi SS, Patel KM. The effects of gastro= esophageal reflux on laryngotracheal reconstruction. = Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122:297.

Zalz= al GH, Tran LP. Pediat= ric gastroesophageal reflux and lary= ngopharyngeal reflux. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000; 33:151.