Evaluation of gustatory functions in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the gustatory functions in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

Methods: The study population consisted of the control and the reflux groups. There were 50 patients in each group. Reflux symptom index and reflux symptom scoring system were used in the diagnosis of reflux group. These two groups were subjected to taste test described by Goins et al., and taste test was applied separately to the back, middle and anterior parts of the tongue and the results were compared.

Results: When the demographic characteristics of the groups were compared, there was no statistical difference in terms of sex, age and smoking habit. In our study, we found a statistically significant decrease in the perception of bitterness, sourness and salty taste at the back, middle and 1/3 anterior part of the tongue in the LPR group when com- pared to the control group. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of sweet taste.

Conclusion: While laryngopharyngeal reflux disease affect negatively the salty, bitter and sour taste functions, we found the sweet taste as the most resistant taste to LPR. Histopathological examination in animal experiments may be useful in order to prove the hypothesis concerning loss of taste caused by LPR.

Keywords

• Larynngopharyngeal reflux,loss of taste,reflux symptom index

Kaynakça

1. 1. Akiyama J, Kuribayashi S, Baeg MK, et al. Current and future per- spectives in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2018 May 16 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13850
2. 2. Napierkowski J, Wong KH. Extraesophageal manifestations of GERD. Am J Med Sci 2003;326:285–99.
3. 3. Koufman JA, Aviv JE, Casiano RR, Shaw GY. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: position statement of the committee on speech, voice and swallowing disorders of the American Academy of Otolaryngology– Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;127: 32–5.
4. 4. Kendall KA. Controversies in the diagnosis and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;14:113–5.
5. 5. Gyawali CP, Azagury DE, Chan WW, et al. Nonerosive reflux disease: clinical concepts. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2018 May 15 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13845
6. 6. Mendelsohn AH. The effects of reflux on the elderly: the problems with medications and interventions. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2018 Apr 23. pii: S0030-6665(18)30054-9. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/j. otc.2018.03.007
7. 7. Katz PO. State of the art: extraesophageal manifestations of gas- troesophageal reflux disease. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2005;5: 126–34.
8. 8. Vaezi MF. Extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Cornerstone 2003;5:32–8.

9. 9. Koufman JA. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroe- sophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experi- mental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the develop- ment of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 1991;101(4 Pt 2 Suppl 53):1–78.
10. 10. Vaezi MF, Hicks DM, Abelson TI, Richter JE. Laryngeal signs and symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a crit- ical assessment of cause and effect association. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;1:333–44.
11. 11. Schreiber S, Garten D, Sudhoff H. Pathophysiological mecha- nisms of extraesophageal reflux in otolaryngeal disorders. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:17–24.
12. 12. Roh JL, Yoon YH. Effect of acid and pepsin on glottic wound healing: a simulated reflux model. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:995–1000.
13. 13. Johnston N, Knight J, Dettmar PW, Lively MO, Koufmann JA. Pepsin and carbonic anhydrase isoenzyme III as diagnostic mark- ers for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Laryngoscope 2004;114: 2129–34.
14. 14. Little FB, Koufman JA, Kohut RI, Marshall RB. Effect of gastric acid on the pathogenesis of subglottic stenosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985;94:516–9.
15. 15. Habesoglu TE, Habesoglu M, Sürmeli M, et al. Histological changes of rat soft palate with exposure to experimental laryn- gopharyngeal reflux. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:730–6.
16. 16. Fraser-Kirk K. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: a confounding cause of aerodigestive dysfunction. Aust Fam Physician 2017;46:34-9.
17. 17. 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–9S.
18. 18. El-Serag HB, Gilger M, Kuebeler M, Rabeneck L. Extraesophageal associations of gastroesophageal reflux disease in children without neurologic defects. Gastroenterology 2001;121:1294–9.
19. 19. Carr MM, Poje CP, Ehrig D, Brodsky LS Incidence of reflux in young children undergoing adenoidectomy. Laryngoscope 2001; 111:2170–2.
20. 20. Velepic M, Rozmanic V, Velepic M, Bonifacic M. Gastroesophageal reflux, allergy and chronic tubotympanal disor- ders in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2000;55:187–90.
21. 21. Altundag A, Cayonu M, Salihoglu M, et al. Laryngopharyngeal reflux has negative effects on taste
22. 22. Clark MP, O’Malley S. Chorda tympani nerve function after mid- dle ear surgery. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:335–40.
23. 23. Bhide SA, Miah AB, Harrington KJ, Newbold KL, Nutting CM. Radiation- induced xerostomia: pathophysiology, prevention and treatment. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2009;21:737–44.
24. 24. Zheng WK, Inokuchi A, Yamamoto T, Komiyama S. Taste dys- function in irradiated patients with head and neck cancer. Fukuoka Iqaku Zasshi 2002;93:64–76.
25. 25. Dawes PJ. Early complications of surgery for chronic otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 1999;113:803–10.
26. 26. Landis BN, Beutner D, Frasnelli J, Hüttenbrink KB, Hummel T. Gustatory function in chronic inflammatory middle ear diseases. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1124–7.
27. 27. Goins MR, Pitovski DZ. Posttonsillectomy taste distortion: a sig- nificant complication. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1206–13.