Problem in interpretation of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease according to the location of proximal probe in 24 hour ambulatory esophageal dual probe pH monitoring

An, Jin Kwang; Kim, Gwang Ha; Kim, Jeong Yeol; Chu, Hyung Jun; Kang, Dae Hwan; Song, Geun Am; Cho, Mong; Yang, Ung Suk

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The diagnostic criteria of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD) is defined differently according to the location of the proximal pH probe: upper esophagus, upper esophageal sphincter (UES) or hypopharynx. Clinically the location of proximal probe is determined by the location of distal probe, which is usually fixed on 5 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. This study was performed to evaluate the difference in the diagnosis of LPRD between the results from considering the location of the proximal probe and not considering it.
METHODS
This study consisted of 76 patients performed esophageal manometry and 24 hour ambulatory pH monitoring of esophagus using the dual probe. According to location of the proximal probe, the patients were divided into 3 groups : upper esophagus, UES and hypopharynx group. Firstly, we used the diagnostic criteria not considering the location of the probe concordantly in all 76 patients : criteria of the upper esophagus, UES and hypopharynx respectively. And then, we used the diagnostic criteria considering the location of the proximal probe. The results were compared.
RESULTS
When the diagnostic criteria of upper esophagus was used, 3.9% (3/76) was diagnosed as LPRD. In the case of UES and hypopharynx, 18.4% (14/76) and 38.2% (29/76) was diagnosed as LPRD. When the diagnostic criteria considering the location of the proximal probe was used, 27.6% (21/76) was diagnosed as LPRD. Significant difference was found between the result considering the location of the probe and 3 results not considering it (p<0.01).
CONCLUSION
It is thought to be appropriate to use the diagnostic criteria considering the location of the proximal probe for the more accurate diagnosis of LPRD.