The Laryngoscope · 2021
The Impact of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux on Occurrence and Clinical Course of Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gluvajić Daša, Šereg-Bahar Maja, Jerin Aleš, Janša Rado, Hočevar-Boltežar Irena
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has been proposed both as a trigger for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) onset and as a factor favoring an aggressive clinical course.
STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective study, 106 participants were recruited within a period of 24 months at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervicofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana.
METHODS: This study compared a group of RRP patients (N = 36) with a group of LPR patients (N = 28) and a group of healthy participants (N = 42) based on Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Scores (RFS), and saliva analyses (pH, pepsin concentration, bile acid concentration, and pepsin enzymatic activity).
RESULTS: The RRP group compared to the LPR group showed a statistically significant difference only in RSI and RFS scores, while the RRP group compared to healthy controls showed significantly higher values in all tested parameters (RSI score, RFS, saliva pH, pepsin concentration, bile acids concentration, pepsin enzymatic activity).
CONCLUSIONS: LPR is common in RRP patients and significantly more prevalent compared to healthy controls. Our results show that saliva analyses are a better office-based tool than RSI questionnaires and RFS scores for diagnosing LPR in RRP patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:619-625, 2022.
STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective study, 106 participants were recruited within a period of 24 months at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervicofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Ljubljana.
METHODS: This study compared a group of RRP patients (N = 36) with a group of LPR patients (N = 28) and a group of healthy participants (N = 42) based on Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Scores (RFS), and saliva analyses (pH, pepsin concentration, bile acid concentration, and pepsin enzymatic activity).
RESULTS: The RRP group compared to the LPR group showed a statistically significant difference only in RSI and RFS scores, while the RRP group compared to healthy controls showed significantly higher values in all tested parameters (RSI score, RFS, saliva pH, pepsin concentration, bile acids concentration, pepsin enzymatic activity).
CONCLUSIONS: LPR is common in RRP patients and significantly more prevalent compared to healthy controls. Our results show that saliva analyses are a better office-based tool than RSI questionnaires and RFS scores for diagnosing LPR in RRP patients.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:619-625, 2022.