4.5 Article

Efficacy of Computer-Controlled Repositioning Procedure for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 125, Issue 3, Pages 715-719

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.24961

Keywords

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo; posterior semicircular canal; computer-controlled canalith repositioning procedure; Epley maneuver; Dix-Hallpike test

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/HypothesisTo evaluate the short-term efficacy of the computer-controlled canalith repositioning procedure (CRP) for treatment of posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) compared with the current standard CRP. Study DesignProspective case series. MethodsOne hundred thirty-two patients diagnosed as having idiopathic posterior canal BPPV, with an age range of 28 to 86 years (mean 56 years), 47 men and 85 women, were treated with computer-controlled CRP mimicking the Epley maneuver. Resolution of vertigo and nystagmus on the Dix-Hallpike test at 1-week follow-up after treatment was the main outcome measure to assess the efficacy of treatment. ResultsAt 1-week follow-up after treatment with computer-controlled CRP, 108 (81.8%) of 132 patients had complete resolution of vertigo and nystagmus, nine (6.8%) had resolution of vertigo but presence of nystagmus, and 15 (11.4%) had provoked vertigo and nystagmus on the Dix-Hallpike test. The 81.8% success rate was comparable to those who received current standard CRP treatment in randomized controlled trials at about 80%. No significant adverse effects or complications occurred in the patients treated with computer-controlled CRP, aside from two patients (1.5%) with conversion into lateral canal BPPV. ConclusionsComputer-controlled CRP is effective for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV, with a success rate similar to those treated with the Epley maneuver, and is safe and easy to perform on patients. Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 125:715-719, 2015

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available