4.2 Article

Histologic versus pH probe results in pediatric laryngopharyngeal reflux

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.02.017

关键词

Reflux; Laryngopharyngeal reflux; Pharyngeal reflux; pH probe; GERD; Nasal congestion; Pediatric; Children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: A comparison of histologic findings from the post-cricoid region versus nasopharyngeal pH probe results in the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in the pediatric patient. Study design: Retrospective review. Setting: Outpatient pediatric otolaryngology private practice. Subject and methods: 63 consecutive patients, age 6-months to 17-years between June 1, 2009 and October 6, 2010, tested by simultaneous post cricoid biopsy and nasopharyngeal pH probe monitoring using the Restech Dx-pH Measurement System (Respiratory Technology Corporation, San Diego, CA). Results: Of the 63 total patients (age 6-months to 17-years), 11(17%) were excluded due to a pulled probe, one additional patient did not have a biopsy taken and one probe failed after insertion making a total of 50 patients with complete data sets. Thirty-six of those 50 patients had a positive probe with a negative biopsy (72%). Four (8%) had both a positive probe and biopsy and 10(16%) had a negative probe and negative biopsy. No patients had a negative probe and positive biopsy. Symptoms used to identify patients suspected of reflux included: throat clearing, nasal congestion, cough, history of recurrent sinusitis with negative radiographic findings, halitosis, culture negative sore throat, post nasal drip, otalgia, poor appetite and stomach ache. Conclusion: Eighty percent of our patients (40) were either positive for reflux by pH probe or by pH probe and biopsy. The Restech Dx-pH Measurement System appeared to be well tolerated in all age groups. There were no complications. We found this a useful tool in confirming clinical suspicion of LPR. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据