European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 1, pp 175–183 | Cite as

Establishment of a novel and effective reflux laryngitis model in rabbits: a preliminary study

  • Zhewei Lou
  • Chao Xue
  • Jing Kang
  • Ting Gong
  • Austin Scholp
  • Jack J. JiangEmail author



To establish a novel and effective reflux model with a modified nasogastric aspiration tube and to investigate the association between different types of nasogastric aspiration tubes and reflux laryngitis, we conducted this study.


Thirty-eight healthy New Zealand albino rabbits (2.5–3.5 kg) were divided into three groups: control (CTR, n = 6)—non-intubated; normal nasogastric intubation (NNI, n = 16)—intubated with 4#, 6#, 8#, and 10# normal nasogastric aspiration tubes; and modified nasogastric intubation (MNI, n = 16)—intubated with 4#, 6#, 8#, and 10# modified nasogastric aspiration tubes. The laryngoscopy, body weight, and pH values at the esophageal entrance were recorded before and 1, 2, and 4 weeks after intubation. After the final laryngoscopy, the animals in groups with a pH below 4 were sacrificed to obtain histological and gene expression analysis results.


The reflux finding score (RFS) after 4 weeks showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the 8# NNI group (7 ± 0.816, P < 0.001), the 8# MNI group (11.5 ± 2.517, P < 0.001) and the 10# MNI (12.75 ± 1.893, P < 0.001) group compared with the control group (1.83 ± 1.602). The pH values of these three groups were lower than 4. However, the weight loss of the rabbits in the 10# NNI and 10# MNI groups was more obvious. Submucous gland hyperplasia and inflammation were significantly increased in the 8# NNI group, 8# MNI group and the 10# MNI group, but in the level of some pro-inflammatory cytokines and COX-2, the MNI group was significantly higher than the NNI group (8# NNI × 8# MNI, P < 0.01; 8# MNI × 10# MNI, P < 0.01).


This study showed that 8# modified nasogastric intubation (MNI) produces effective reflux laryngitis in the rabbits.


Laryngopharyngeal reflux Reflux laryngitis Reflux finding score (RFS) pH measurement mRNA expression Animal model 



The work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Number: 81870710).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital of Fudan University (2017061).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Shi YM, Zhao GF (2012) Recent progress in research of gastroesophageal reflux disease:Pathogenesis,diagnosis and treatment. World Chin J Digestol 20(36):3713–3718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R, Global Consensus G (2006) The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 101(8):1900–1920 (quiz 1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noordzij JP, Khidr A, Desper E, Meek RB, Reibel JF, Levine PA (2002) Correlation of pH probe-measured laryngopharyngeal reflux with symptoms and signs of reflux laryngitis. Laryngoscope 112(12):2192–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo H, Ma H, Wang J (2016) Proton pump inhibitor therapy for the treatment of laryngopharyngeal reflux: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Gastroenterol 50(4):295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qadeer MA, Phillips CO, Lopez AR, Steward DL, Noordzij JP, Wo JM, Suurna M, Havas T, Howden CW, Vaezi MF (2006) Proton pump inhibitor therapy for suspected GERD-related chronic laryngitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 101(11):2646–2654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malfertheiner P, Kandulski A, Venerito M (2017) Proton-pump inhibitors: understanding the complications and risks. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(12):697–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Apostolakis LW, Funk GF, Urdaneta LF, McCulloch TM, Jeyapalan MM (2001) The nasogastric tube syndrome: two case reports and review of the literature. Head Neck 23(1):59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman M, Baim H, Shelton V, Stobnicki M, Chilis T, Ferrara T, Skolnik E (1981) Laryngeal injuries secondary to nasogastric tubes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 90 (5 Pt 1):469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lima-Rodrigues M, Valle-Fernandes A, Lamas N, Cruz A, Baltazar F, Milanezi F, Nunes R, Reis RM, Pedrosa J, Castro AG, Almeida A (2008) A new model of laryngitis: neuropeptide, cyclooxygenase, and cytokine profile. Laryngoscope 118(1):78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu Y, Xu XB, Chen SY, Gao H, Luo TC, Xu L, Zhang TY (2012) Laryngoscopy findings and histological results in a rabbit gastroesophageal reflux model. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol 269(8):1939–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA (2001) The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 111(8):1313–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shay S, Tutuian R, Sifrim D, Vela M, Wise J, Balaji N, Zhang X, Adhami T, Murray J, Peters J, Castell D (2004) Twenty-four hour ambulatory simultaneous impedance and pH monitoring: a multicenter report of normal values from 60 healthy volunteers. Am J Gastroenterol 99(6):1037–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koufman JA, Amin MR, Panetti M (2000) Prevalence of reflux in 113 consecutive patients with laryngeal and voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123(4):385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elton C, Uppal R, Moore D, Goldspink G, Winslet M (1999) Partial cardiomyectomy—an animal model of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Int J Surg Invest 1(1):81Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farrokhi F, Vaezi MF (2007) Extra-esophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux. Oral Dis 13(4):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muderris T, Gokcan MK, Yorulmaz I (2009) The clinical value of pharyngeal pH monitoring using a double-probe, triple-sensor catheter in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135(2):163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shimazu R, Kusano K, Kuratomi Y, Inokuchi A (2009) Histological changes of the pharynx and larynx in rats with chronic acid reflux esophagitis. Acta Otolaryngol 129(8):886–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coutaux A, Adam F, Willer JC, Le Bars D (2005) Hyperalgesia and allodynia: peripheral mechanisms. Jt Bone Spine revue du rhumatisme 72(5):359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu C, Wang H, Liu K (2016) Meta-analysis of the efficacy of proton pump inhibitors for the symptoms of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Braz J Med Biol Res Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas 49(7):e5149Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck SurgeryEye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital of Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Department of SurgeryUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations