Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) refers to the backflow of acidic stomach content into the larynx, pharynx, and upper aerodigestive tract. The diagnosis of LPR is based on the patient's history and findings of the laryngoscopy associated with LPR. Other possible manifestations consistent with LPR symptoms include laryngeal cancer, vocal fold granulomas, Reinke's space edema, and vocal polyps. In this study, we compared the characteristics of patients with LPR symptoms and incidental laryngeal findings (ILF) in the laryngoscopic evaluation to those without ILF (WILF).

Objectives: Determine the characteristics of LPR-symptomatic patients with ILF versus WILF.

Methods: In this retrospective study, we examined 160 medical charts from patients referred to the otolaryngology clinic at Galilee Medical Center for LPR evaluation 2016–2018. The reflux symptoms index (RSI), reflux finding score (RFS), and demographics of the patient were collected. All patients with a positive RSI score for LPR (RSI > 9) were included, and the profiles of patients with versus without ILF on laryngoscopy examination were compared.

Results: Of the 160 patients, 20 (12.5%) had ILF during laryngoscopy. Most had vocal cord findings such as leukoplakia (20%), polyps (15%), and nodules (20%). Hoarseness, throat clearing, swallowing difficulty, breathing difficulties, and total RSI score were significantly higher in patients with ILF.

Conclusions: Evaluation of LPR symptoms may provide otolaryngologists with a tool to identify patients with other findings on fiberoptic laryngoscopy. A laryngoscopic examination should be part of the examination of every patient with LPR to enable diagnosis of incidental findings.

Background: The estimated incidence of esophageal atresia (EA) with or without tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) is 1:3500 live births. During childhood these patients have various co-morbidities, but the overall quality of life among adults is similar to that of the general population.

Objectives: To evaluate short- and long-term co-morbidities and quality of life among infants born with EA ± TEF at a large single medical center.

Methods: Medical records of 65 children born over a 21 year period were reviewed for short- and long-term medical data. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 of their parents regarding medical problems and quality of life after home discharge.

Results: The main long-term co-morbidities during the first 2 years of life, 4–6 years of age, and during adolescence (12–16 years) included gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) in 56.5%, 35.8%, and 18.7%, respectively; stridor in 84.8%, 45.2%, and 12.5%, respectively; hyper-reactive airway disease (HRAD) in 43.5%, 35.5%, and 36.5%, respectively; recurrent pneumonia in 43.5%, 32.3%, and 18.8%, respectively; and overall recurrent hospitalizations in 87%, 41.9%, and 25%, respectively. The quality of life was reportedly affected among 100%, 75%, and 33.3% respectively.

Conclusions: Long-term follow-up of patients with EA ± TEF indicates a high burden of co-morbidities during the first 6 years of life, with a gradual decrease in symptoms thereafter. Nevertheless, HRAD continued to impact the daily life of about one-third of the older adolescents, and GERD one-fifth. A long-term multidisciplinary follow-up should be conducted to prevent late onset complications that may affect the quality of life.

Background: Infants who have experienced an apparent life-threatening event typically undergo an extensive evaluation to rule out serious underlying conditions.

Objectives: To evaluate the yield of different tests performed after an apparent life-threatening event and to identify high risk groups in which more extensive diagnostic tests are required.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in a children's hospital over a 4 year period during which the charts of infants who were admitted with an apparent life-threatening event were reviewed. The yield for each diagnostic test was established according to the ratio of positive results contributing to the diagnosis of the apparent life-threatening event.

Results: The study included 69 infants between the ages of 1 week and 1 year. There were abnormal findings in 36% of the cases. Gastroesophageal reflux was the most common diagnosis (60%). In the remaining patients the diagnosis was either seizures (12%) or respiratory tract infections (28%). Tests used for the diagnosis of cardiac, metabolic and non-respiratory infections had no yield. A positive correlation was found between abnormal test results and abnormal physical examination (P = 0.001), an abnormal perinatal history (P = 0.017), and age older than 2 months (P = 0.002).

Conclusions: The yield of most of the tests performed after an apparent life-threatening event is low, especially in infants with a normal perinatal history and physical examination.

Background: Guidelines are important for keeping family physicians informed of the constant developments in many fields of medicine.

Objectives: To compare the knowledge of gastroenterologists and family physicians regarding the diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in order to determine the need for expert guidelines.

Methods: A 25 item questionnaire on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of GERD[1] was presented to 35 gastroenterologists and 35 family physicians. Each item was rated on a four point scale from 1 = highly recommended to 4 = not recommended. A voting system was used for each group on separate occasions. The proportions of correct answers according to the level of recommendation were compared between the groups.

Results: The groups' responses agreed on only 4 of the 25 items; differences between the remaining 21 were all statistically significant. For 14 items, 70% of the gastroenterologists chose the grade 1 recommendation, whereas more than 70% of the family physicians chose mostly grade 2.

Conclusions: The gap in knowledge on gastroesophageal reflux disease between gastroenterologists and family physicians is significant and may have a profound impact on diagnosis and treatment. Clear and accurate guidelines may improve patient evaluation in the community.