International Journal of Phonosurgery & Laryngology

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2014 ) > List of Articles


Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Dysphonics—Understanding the Significance and the Efficacy of Clinical Diagnosis: A Case-based Study

Swapna Sebastian, Arif Ali Kolethekkat

Citation Information : Sebastian S, Kolethekkat AA. Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Dysphonics—Understanding the Significance and the Efficacy of Clinical Diagnosis: A Case-based Study. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2014; 4 (1):5-9.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10023-1069

Published Online: 01-06-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).



To determine the prevalence of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) in patients with voice disorders and to find out the efficacy of reflux symptom index (RSI) and reflux finding score (RFS) in the diagnosis.


This prospective analytical study was conducted on 554 patients who presented with dysphonia and symptoms suspicious of LPR. They were then subjected to clinical work up based on symptomatic history based RSI and video stroboscopic RFS scoring criteria. The results were analyzed statistically. The differences between RSI and RFS were calculated by Fisher's two sided test and the comparison between the two is calculated using kappa statistics to check the strength of agreement.


Among 554 patients, 457 (82.4%) patients were diagnosed to have LPR based on RSI score of more than 13. Among 448 (80.8%) patients RFS score was positive. Vocal nodule (23.64%), laryngitis (22.38%) and the vocal polyp (20.03%) constitute the majority, with a female preponderance in vocal nodule. Both RSI and RFS were poor or almost absent in conditions such as spasmodic dysphonia, tremors, vocal cord palsy, hemorrhage, functional aphonia and traumatic conditions. The Pearson correlation coefficient showed a good correlation and agreement between RSI and RFS was statistically significant.


The association of LPR in patients with voice disorders is significantly high. The RSI and RFS based clinical diagnosis is reliable and valid in the diagnosis of LPR as revealed in our study.

How to cite this article

Sebastian S, Kolethekkat AA, Mathew J, Gowri M. Laryngopharyngeal Reflux in Dysphonics— Understanding the Significance and the Efficacy of Clinical Diagnosis: A Case-based Study. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2014;4(1):5-9.

PDF Share
  1. Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms better predict the presence of esophageal adenocarcinoma than typical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Ann Surg 2004 Jun;239(6):849-856.
  2. Esophageal reflux and secondary malignant neoplasia at laryngoesophagectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;116:163-164.
  3. High incidence of laryngopharyngeal reflux in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1007-1011.
  4. Vocal fatigue and dysphonia in the professional voice users: Bogart-Bacall Syndrome. Laryngoscope 1988;98:493-498.
  5. Videostroboscopy in laryngopharyngeal reflux disorder. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2011;1(2):52-56.
  6. Reflux laryngitis and its sequelae. J Voice 1988;2:78-79.
  7. Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux as a cause of idiopathic hoarseness. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34:1900-1904.
  8. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice 2002;16(2): 274-277.
  9. Comparing the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux between the reflux sysmptom index, clinical consultation and reflux finding score in a group of patients presenting to an ENT clinic with an interest in voice disorders: a pilot study in thiry five patients. Clinical Otolarygnology 2013;38:326-335.
  10. Reflux symptom index and reflux finding score in otolaryngologic practice. J Voice 2012;26:123-127.
  11. The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 2001;111:1313-1317.
  12. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
  13. Dysphonia and laryngopharyngeal reflux. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2004;24:13-19.
  14. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;127:32-35.
  15. Gastroesophageal reflux and laryngeal disease. Arch Surg 1993;128:1021-1027.
  16. Is chronic gastroesophageal reflux a causative factor in glottic carcinoma? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;99:370-373.
  17. Laryngopharyngeal reflux and voice disorders. Visible Voice 1994;3:2-7.
  18. Ear, nose and throat manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Complaints can be telltale signs. Postgrad Med 2005;117(2):39-45.
  19. Prevalence of grastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with laryngeal and voice disrders. Saudi Med J 2007;28(7):1068-1071.
  20. Role of reflux acid in pathogenesis of laryngeal disorders. Am J Med 1997;103:100-106.
  21. Reflux laryngitis and its sequelae: the diagnostic role of ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring. J Voice 1988;2:78-89.
  22. A management strategy for vocal process granulomas Laryngoscope 1999;109:301-306.
  23. Contact ulcer and granuloma of the larynx. In Gates G. editor. Current Therapy in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 5th ed. St Louis: Mosby Publishers; 1993. p. 456-459.
  24. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 1991;101:1-78.
  25. Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring: practical approach and clinical applications. New York: Igaku-Shoin; 1991.
  26. Ambulatory pH monitoring methodology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109:10-46.
  27. Diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux among global patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;134:81-85.
  28. Reliability of speech language pathologist and otolaryngologist ratings of laryngeal signs of reflux in an asymptomatic population using the reflux finding score. J Voice 2007;21:92-100.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.