Cargando…

Evaluation of the Reflux Symptom Index and the Endolaryngeal Findings Scale after Treatment in Individuals with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Introduction  Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent condition in outpatients visiting the otorhinolaryngological clinic, with many controversies regarding its diagnosis and follow-up. Therefore, there is a need for clinical instruments that can diagnose individuals and monitor the results of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Silva, Álvaro Siqueira, Duprat, André Campos, Machado, Súnia Ribeiro, Melo, Daniele Nahmias, Nascimento Ribeiro, Dayse Kelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda. 2021
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7851361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33542761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1702967
Descripción
Sumario:Introduction  Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent condition in outpatients visiting the otorhinolaryngological clinic, with many controversies regarding its diagnosis and follow-up. Therefore, there is a need for clinical instruments that can diagnose individuals and monitor the results of their treatment. Objective  To evaluate the applicability of the scores translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese: Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Endolaryngeal Reflux Findings Scale (ERFS), as instruments for post-treatment follow-up of LPR. Method  A total of 35 individuals with atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and with an objective diagnosis of LPR, confirmed by high digestive endoscopy and 24-hour esophageal pH-metry dual probe test were submitted to the RSI and ERFS questionnaires, used in the pre- and post-treatment of 90 days with a Proton Pump Inhibitor. Result  The evaluation of RSI and ERFS in the pre- and post-treatment showed a reduction in the results of the two scores, with a higher drop in the RSI ( p  < 0.001) than in the ERFS ( p  = 0.014). Although there was an improvement in the values in 23.9% of the individuals in the ERFS, there was no change in the category ( p  = 0.057), different from the RSI ( p  < 0.001), where there was a 67.4% improvement in values, as well as change in category (score went from positive to negative). There was a correlation between RSI and ERFS, moderate in the pretreatment and strong in the post-treatment. Conclusion  The RSI and ERFS scores, when translated and adapted for Brazilian Portuguese and applied simultaneously, can be considered a good tool for post-treatment LPR follow-up.