Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2026
Manometric Esophageal Abnormalities in Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aoun Jennifer, Chen Guangjin, Lechien Jérôme R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence and findings of esophageal manometric abnormalities underlying dysphagia in laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD).
METHODS: Three independent investigators conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting manometry and high-resolution manometry (HRM) findings in LPRD patients. Methodological bias analysis was conducted with two validated bias tools.
RESULTS: Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria (2337 patients). The LPRD diagnosis was based on objective testing in 3/24 (12.5%) studies, with one study using hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH testing. Manometric studies consistently suggested increased upper esophageal sphincter baseline and residual pressures, whereas lower esophageal sphincter baseline and relaxation pressures were decreased in LPRD patients. Esophageal body motility was characterized by a high prevalence of ineffective swallows, and impaired bolus clearance. Reflex mechanisms were also altered. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies for LPRD diagnosis, exclusion criteria, and manometric parameters, which were reported with the Chicago classification 3.0/4.0 in 10/24 (42%) studies. The mean MINORS was 7.5 ± 2.4, highlighting an overall low quality of studies.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests a trend toward ineffective esophageal motility, esophageal sphincter hypotension, or impaired dynamics in patients with swallowing, voice, and breathing LPRD-related symptoms and findings. Further prospective controlled studies including patients with a demonstrated LPRD are needed to establish the prevalence of esophageal abnormalities in LPRD.
METHODS: Three independent investigators conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting manometry and high-resolution manometry (HRM) findings in LPRD patients. Methodological bias analysis was conducted with two validated bias tools.
RESULTS: Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria (2337 patients). The LPRD diagnosis was based on objective testing in 3/24 (12.5%) studies, with one study using hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance-pH testing. Manometric studies consistently suggested increased upper esophageal sphincter baseline and residual pressures, whereas lower esophageal sphincter baseline and relaxation pressures were decreased in LPRD patients. Esophageal body motility was characterized by a high prevalence of ineffective swallows, and impaired bolus clearance. Reflex mechanisms were also altered. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies for LPRD diagnosis, exclusion criteria, and manometric parameters, which were reported with the Chicago classification 3.0/4.0 in 10/24 (42%) studies. The mean MINORS was 7.5 ± 2.4, highlighting an overall low quality of studies.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests a trend toward ineffective esophageal motility, esophageal sphincter hypotension, or impaired dynamics in patients with swallowing, voice, and breathing LPRD-related symptoms and findings. Further prospective controlled studies including patients with a demonstrated LPRD are needed to establish the prevalence of esophageal abnormalities in LPRD.