SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ENT Updates / 2017 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of olfactory functions in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

Yusuf Çağdaş KUMBUL
Hüseyin IŞIK
Aykut Erdem DİNÇ
DUYGU ERDEM
Sultan Şevik ELİÇORA
Pages
144–148
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease has a negative effect on olfactory functions without total loss in olfactory functions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate olfactory functions in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Each group consisted of 50 patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease has a negative effect on olfactory functions without total loss in olfactory functions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate olfactory functions in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Methods: The study consisted of control and reflux groups. Each group consisted of 50 patients. Reflux group received the diagnosis of reflux based on reflux symptom index, and reflux symptom scores. The olfactory test of Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) was conducted on these 2 groups, and the results were compared. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the demographic characteristics such as gender and smoking rates while there was statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age variable. The covariance analysis was used to eliminate the effect of age variable. The mean scores calculated after covariance analysis were compared. It is known that the higher score of CCCRC test is 7 points. Accordingly, CCCRC scores of the control and reflux groups were 5.84± 0.13, and 5.20±0.11, respectively. This difference between two groups was statistically significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease has a negative effect on olfactory functions without total loss in olfactory functions.

Özet

Larengofarengeal reflü hastalar>nda koku fonksiyonlar>n>n de¤erlendirilmesi Amaç: Çal>flman>n amac> larengofarengeal reflü hastalar>nda koku fonksiyonlar>n> de¤erlendirmektir. Yöntem: Çal>flma, kontrol ve reflü grubu olmak üzere 2 gruptan oluflmaktayd>. Her grupta 50'fler hasta mevcuttu. Reflü grubuna reflü tan>s> koyarken reflü semptom indeksi ve reflü bulgu skorlamas>ndan faydalan>ld>. Bu 2 gruba Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) koku testi uygulan>p sonuçlar karfl>laflt>r>ld>. Bulgular: Gruplar>n demografik özelliklerine bak>ld>¤>nda cinsiyet ve sigara kullan>m> oranlar> aç>s>ndan istatistiksel fark bulunmazken yafl de¤iflkeni aç>s>ndan istatistiksel fark vard>. Yafl de¤iflkeninin etkisini ortadan kald>rmak için kovaryans analizi yap>ld>. Kovaryans analizi sonras> hesaplanan ortalama skorlar karfl>laflt>r>ld>. CCCRC testinin en yüksek skorunun 7 oldu¤u bilinmektedir. Buna göre kontrol grubunda CCCRC skoru 5.84±0.13 iken reflü grubunda 5.20±0.11 olarak hesapland>. ndaki bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlaml> idi (p ¤> koku fonksiyonlar>nda total kayba yol açmadan koku fonksiyonlar> üzerinde negatif etkisi bulunmaktad>r.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUMBUL, Y. Ç., IŞIK, H., DİNÇ, A. E., ERDEM, D., ELİÇORA, S. Ş. (2017). Evaluation of olfactory functions in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. ENT Updates, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 144–148. https://ajindex.com/articles/154564

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ford CN. Evaluation and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux. JAMA 2005;294:1534–40. Katz PO. State of the art: extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2005;5: 126–34.
  2. Landis BN, Konnerth CG, Hummel T. A study on the frequency of olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1764–9. Brämerson A, Johansson L, Ek L, Nordin S, Bende M. Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction: the Skövde population-based study. Laryngoscope 2004;114:733–7. Klinkenberg-Knol EC. Otolaryngologic manifestations of gastrooesophageal reflux disease. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1998;33 (225):24–8.
  3. Habesoglu TE, Habesoglu M, Sürmeli M, et al. Histological changes of rat soft palate with exposure to experimental laryngopharyngeal reflux. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:730–6.
  4. Abdel-aziz MM, El-Fattah AM, Abdalla AF. Clinical evaluation of pepsin for laryngopharyngeal reflux in children with otitis media with effusion. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013;77:1765–70.
  5. Megale SR, Scanavini AB, Andrade EC, Fernandes MI, AnselmoLima WT. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: its importance in ear, nose, and throat practice. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006;70: 81–8.
  6. Phipps CD, Wood WE, Gibson WS, Cochran WJ. Gastroesophageal reflux contributing to chronic sinus disease in children: a prospective analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126: 831–6.
  7. Toros SZ, Toros AB, Ozel L, et al. Investigation of gastric pepsinogen in middle ear fluid of children with glue ear. Acta Otolaryngol 2010;130:1220–4.
  8. Tasker A, Dettmar PW, Panetti M, Koufman JA, P Birchall J, Pearson JP. Is gastric reflux a cause of otitis media with effusion in children? Laryngoscope 2002;112:1930–4.
  9. Hellgren J, Olin AC, Torén K. Increased risk of rhinitis symptoms in subjects with gastroesophageal reflux. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134:615–9. Weaver EM. Association between gastroesophageal reflux and sinusitis, otitis media, and laryngeal malignancy: a systematic review of the evidence. Am J Med 2003;115 Suppl 3A:81S–89S. Barbero GJ. Gastroesophageal reflux and upper airway disease. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:27–38. Halstead LA. Role of gastroesophageal reflux in pediatric upper airway disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;120:208–14.
  10. Contencin P, Narcy P. Nasopharyngeal pH monitoring in infants and children with chronic rhinopharyngitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1991;22:249–56.
  11. Veyseller B, Ozucer B, Karaaltin AB, Yildirim Y, Degirmenci N, Aksoy F, Ozturan O. Connec