Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 8, pp 1422–1429 | Cite as

A New Technique for Measurement of Pharyngeal pH: Normal Values and Discriminating pH Threshold

  • S. Ayazi
  • J. C. Lipham
  • J. A. Hagen
  • A. L. Tang
  • J. Zehetner
  • J. M. Leers
  • A. Oezcelik
  • E. Abate
  • F. Banki
  • S. R. DeMeester
  • T. R. DeMeester
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Identifying gastroesophageal reflux disease as the cause of respiratory and laryngeal complaints is difficult and depends largely on the measurements of increased acid exposure in the upper esophagus or ideally the pharynx. The current method of measuring pharyngeal pH environment is inaccurate and problematic due to artifacts. A newly designed pharyngeal pH probe to avoid these artifacts has been introduced. The aim of this study was to use this probe to measure the pharyngeal pH environment in normal subjects and establish pH thresholds to identify abnormality.

Methods

Asymptomatic volunteers were studied to define the normal pharyngeal pH environment. All subjects underwent esophagram, esophageal manometry, upper and lower esophageal pH monitoring with a dual-channel pH catheter and pharyngeal pH monitoring with the new probe. Analyses were performed at 0.5 pH intervals between pH 4 and 6.5 to identify the best discriminating pH threshold and calculate a composite pH score to identify an abnormal pH environment.

Results

The study population consisted of 55 normal subjects. The pattern of pharyngeal pH environment was significantly different in the upright and supine periods and required different thresholds. The calculated discriminatory pH threshold was 5.5 for upright and 5.0 for supine periods. The 95th percentile values for the composite score were 9.4 for upright and 6.8 for supine.

Conclusion

A new pharyngeal pH probe which detects aerosolized and liquid acid overcomes the artifacts that occur in measuring pharyngeal pH with existing catheters. Discriminating pH thresholds were selected and normal values defined to identify patients with an abnormal pharyngeal pH environment.

Keywords

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) 24-h pH monitoring Pharynx Esophagus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The investigators wish to thank Miss Paula Corsetti, RN, and Mrs. Cheryl Correia, MBA, without their perseverance and support this study would not have progressed.

References

  1. 1.
    Koufman JA. 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(4):1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koufman JA, Amin MR, Panetti M. Prevalence of reflux in 113 consecutive patients with laryngeal and voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123(4):385–388. [. Erratum in: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 124. 1:104. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2000.109935.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oelschlager BK, Chang L, Pope CE 2nd, Pellegrini CA. Typical GERD symptoms and esophageal pH monitoring are not enough to diagnose pharyngeal reflux. J Surg Res 2005;128(1):55–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacob P, Kahrilas PJ, Herzon G. Proximal esophageal pH-metry in patients with ‘reflux laryngitis’. Gastroenterology 1991;100(2):305–310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wo JM, Hunter JG, Waring JP. Dual-channel ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring, a useful diagnostic tool? Dig Dis Sci 1997;42(11):2222–2226. doi: 10.1023/A:1018802330957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patti MG, Arcerito M, Tamburini A et al. Effect of laparoscopic fundoplication on gastroesophageal reflux disease- induced respiratory symptoms. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:143–149. doi: 10.1016/S1091-255X(00)80050-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiener GJ, Koufman JA, Wu WC et al. Chronic hoarseness secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease: documentation with 24-h ambulatory pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 1989;84(12):1503–1508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wo JM, Jabbar A, Winstead W et al. Hypopharyngeal pH monitoring artifact in detection of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Dig Dis Sci 2002;47(11):2579–2585. doi: 10.1023/A:1020584731503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cherry J, Margulies SI. Contact ulcer of the larynx. Laryngoscope 1968;78(11):1937–1940. doi: 10.1288/00005537-196811000-00007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaufman JA, Houghland JE, Quiroga E. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic antireflux surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-related airway disorder. Surg Endosc 2006;20(12):1824–1830. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0329-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wo JM, Koopman J, Harrell SP et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with single-dose pantoprazole for laryngopharyngeal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101(9):1972–1978. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00693.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cool M, Poelmans J, Feenstra L et al. Characteristics and clinical relevance of proximal esophageal pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99(12):2317–2323. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.40626.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mathus-Vliegen EM, Smit CF et al. Artifacts in 24-h pharyngeal and oesophageal pH monitoring: is simplification of pH data analysis feasible? Scand J Gastroenterol 2004;39(1):14–19. doi: 10.1080/00365520310007341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrell SP, Koopman J, Woosley S et al. Exclusion of pH artifacts is essential for hypopharyngeal pH monitoring. Laryngoscope 2007;117(3):470–474. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31802d344c.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ayazi S, Lipham JC, Portale G et al. Bravo catheter-free pH monitoring: normal values, concordance, optimal diagnostic thresholds, and accuracy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7(1):60–67. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.08.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tuttle SG, Ruffin F, Bettarrella A. The physiology of heartburn. Ann Intern Med 1961;55:292–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weusten BL, Akkermans LM, vanBerge-Henegouwen GP et al. Spatiotemporal characteristics of physiological gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Physiol 1994;266(3 Pt 1):G357–G362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korsten MA, Rosman AS, Fishbein S, Shlein RD, Goldberg HE, Biener A. Chronic xerostomia increases esophageal acid exposure and is associated with esophageal injury. Am J Med 1991;90:701–706.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sonnenberg A, Steinkamp U, Weise A, Berges W, Wienbeck M, Rohner HG, Peter P. Salivary secretion in reflux esophagitis. Gastroenterology 1982;83:889–895.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Ayazi
    • 1
  • J. C. Lipham
    • 1
  • J. A. Hagen
    • 1
  • A. L. Tang
    • 1
  • J. Zehetner
    • 1
  • J. M. Leers
    • 1
  • A. Oezcelik
    • 1
  • E. Abate
    • 1
  • F. Banki
    • 1
  • S. R. DeMeester
    • 1
  • T. R. DeMeester
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Thoracic and Foregut Surgery, Department of Surgery, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations