4.7 Article

Prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in patients with vestibular schwannoma using video head-impulses and vestibular-evoked potentials

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 262, 期 5, 页码 1228-1237

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-015-7697-4

关键词

Video head impulse testing; Vestibular schwannoma; Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials

资金

  1. Garnett Passe and Rodney Williams Memorial Foundation
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We sought to investigate the utility of new non-invasive tests of semicircular-canal and otolith function that are usable in the neuro-otology office practice in patients with vestibular schwannoma. Fifty patients with vestibular schwannoma were assessed using a 5-item battery consisting of air-conducted cervical- and bone conducted ocular-vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (AC cVEMPs and BC oVEMPs) and video head impulse testing (vHIT) in all three canal planes. VEMP asymmetry ratios, latencies, and vHIT gains were used to determine the test sensitivity, relationship with tumour size and the pattern of vestibular nerve involvement. The percentage of abnormalities for each of the five tests for the entire sample ranged between 36.2-61.7 %. In 58.3 % of patients, test abnormalities were referable to both superior and inferior vestibular nerve divisions. Selective inferior nerve dysfunction was identified in 10.4 % and superior nerve dysfunction in 12.5 %. The remaining 18.8 % of patients demonstrated a normal test profile. The sensitivity of the 5-item battery increased with tumour size and all patients with medium to large (> 14 mm) schwannoma had at least two abnormal vestibular test result. Our results indicate that dysfunction of the superior and inferior vestibular nerve evolves in parallel for most patients with schwannoma. Unexplained vHIT and VEMP asymmetry should alert otologists and neurologists to undertake imaging in patients presenting with non-specific disequilibrium or vertigo.

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

4.7
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