4.5 Article

Evaluation of retrootolithic function using galvanic vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 279, 期 7, 页码 3415-3423

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-021-07094-9

关键词

Galvanic vestibular stimulation; Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential; Ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential; Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

资金

  1. Far Eastern Memorial Hospital [FEMH-2016-C-029]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By investigating the characteristic parameters and abnormal rates of inner ear tests in BPPV patients, it was found that these patients may have both otolithic and neural dysfunctions, with otolithic organ damage occurring more frequently than retrootolithic neural degeneration.
Purpose The purpose is to investigate possible vestibulopathy in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), inner ear tests, including cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs and oVEMPs) via various stimulation modes, were adopted. Methods Fifty BPPV patients were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent pure tone audiometry, cVEMPs, oVEMPs, and caloric tests. The recurrence status, abnormal rates of inner ear tests, and the characteristic parameters of VEMPs, such as wave latencies and amplitudes, were analyzed. Results In affected ears, the abnormal rates of acoustic cVEMPs, vibratory oVEMPs, galvanic cVEMPs, and galvanic oVEMPs were 62%, 28%, 36%, and 14%, respectively. The abnormalities of acoustic cVEMPs were significantly larger than those of vibratory oVEMPs, and acoustic/vibratory VEMPs had significantly higher abnormal rates than the corresponding galvanic VEMPs. Conclusion BPPV patients may have both otolithic and neural dysfunctions. Otolithic organ damage occurs more frequently than retrootolithic neural degeneration, and the saccular macula might have a greater extent of damage than the utricular macula.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据