No abstract

Objective Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is defined as the retropulsion of gastric contents into the larynx, oropharynx, and/or nasopharynx. The 24-hour combined hypopharyngeal-esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance with dual pH probe (24h-HEMII-pH) is currently the gold standard in LPR diagnosis; however, it is invasive, user dependent, and not always tolerated. This study assesses the diagnostic utility of salivary pepsin (Peptest) at different thresholds and during symptomatic periods as compared with the 24h-HEMII-pH probe in diagnosing LPR. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Private laryngology clinic in Melbourne, Australia. Subjects and Methods Thirty-five patients with a clinical history and endoscopic findings of LPR were recruited and simultaneously evaluated for LPR via 24h-HEMII-pH probe and salivary pepsin analysis at 5 key time points over the same 24-hour period. Results Salivary pepsin was 76.9% sensitive and had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 87.0% at a threshold of 16 ng/mL when compared with the 24h-HEMII-pH probe. If the pathologic pepsin threshold was raised to 75 ng/mL, salivary pepsin had a sensitivity of 57.7%, a specificity of 75.0%, and a PPV of 93.8%. Symptomatic testing conferred a superior specificity at 16 ng/mL (66.7%) and 75 ng/mL (100.0%) and a superior PPV at 16 ng/mL (92.3%) and 75 ng/mL (100.0%). Conclusion Salivary pepsin detection is a simpler, more cost-effective, and less traumatic universal first-line alternative to 24h-HEMII-pH probe in diagnosing LPR. Superior specificities conferring greater diagnostic value may be achieved with higher thresholds and symptomatic testing. If clinical suspicion remains high following negative salivary pepsin analysis, a 24h-HEMII-pH study could provide further diagnostic information.

A collaborative approach incorporating feedback from PFs and SPs to create a simulation scenario is a valuable method to enhance reflective practice for clinicians.

ObjectiveAttitudes and barriers towards HPV vaccination were explored in a population of male surgeons in Gynecology and Otolaryngology in Ontario, Canada.Materials/methodsAn internet-based survey was distributed to male residents and physicians affiliated with the departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Otolaryngology at six Ontario universities. The survey consisted of 16 questions (3 demographic, 3 workplace exposure, 6 regarding personal vaccination, and 3 regarding patient vaccination). Subgroup analyses examined differences between residents versus staff physicians and gynecologists versus otolaryngologists.ResultsMost respondents (51/63, 81.0%) had not been vaccinated against HPV, yet would consider vaccination in the future (41/51, 80.4%). Significantly more residents would consider vaccination compared to staff physicians (p = .03). Personal protection from benign HPV disease was the most common motivating factor (25/59, 42.4%) among participants. A notable barrier to vaccination was “age over recommendations” (9/44, 20.4%). Most participants would recommend the HPV vaccine to both male patients (49/62, 79.0%) and male partners of female patients (47/62, 75.8%).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates male gynecologists and otolaryngologists had largely favorable attitudes towards HPV vaccination though few had received vaccination. These findings may be used to increase HPV vaccine uptake among male health care professionals and their patients.

No abstract