PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: There may be confusion about which canal is involved in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), especially with those that have subtle findings. The study aimed to determine if video head impulse testing may be used in such patients as a diagnostic tool. Symptom scoring and treatment efficiency in BPPV are essential parts of the process. Therefore, inventories like \"Dizziness Handicap Inventory\" may be useful in this regard.
METHODS: Patients with posterior and lateral canal BPPV were included. Video head impulse testing was performed prior to treatment and 1 week after treatment. Vestibuloocular reflex (VOR) gains were noted and compared to the opposite side. The presence of correction saccades was noted as well. Also, pretreatment and posttreatment Dizziness Handicap Inventory scores were compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were diagnosed with posterior canal BPPV, and sixteen were with horizontal canal BPPV. In patients with posterior canal BPPV, there was no difference between the involved canal VOR gains and the other canals on the same side (P=.639). The involved horizontal canal did not differ from the opposite horizontal canal. Patients with lateral canal BPPV show more significant improvement after treatment compared to patients with posterior canal BPPV.
CONCLUSIONS: Video head impulse testing may not be used to estimate the involved canal in BPPV; however, it may be used to evaluate the efficiency of the treatment, especially in the lateral canal.
METHODS: Patients with posterior and lateral canal BPPV were included. Video head impulse testing was performed prior to treatment and 1 week after treatment. Vestibuloocular reflex (VOR) gains were noted and compared to the opposite side. The presence of correction saccades was noted as well. Also, pretreatment and posttreatment Dizziness Handicap Inventory scores were compared.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were diagnosed with posterior canal BPPV, and sixteen were with horizontal canal BPPV. In patients with posterior canal BPPV, there was no difference between the involved canal VOR gains and the other canals on the same side (P=.639). The involved horizontal canal did not differ from the opposite horizontal canal. Patients with lateral canal BPPV show more significant improvement after treatment compared to patients with posterior canal BPPV.
CONCLUSIONS: Video head impulse testing may not be used to estimate the involved canal in BPPV; however, it may be used to evaluate the efficiency of the treatment, especially in the lateral canal.
摘要：
背景：良性阵发性位置性眩晕（BPPV）患者可能会混淆哪个管受累，尤其是那些有微妙发现的人。该研究旨在确定是否可以在此类患者中使用视频头脉冲测试作为诊断工具。BPPV的症状评分和治疗效率是该过程的重要组成部分。因此,像“头晕障碍库存”这样的库存在这方面可能是有用的。
方法：纳入后管和外侧管BPPV患者。在治疗前和治疗后1周进行视频头脉冲测试。注意到前庭眼反射（VOR）的增加，并与另一侧进行比较。还注意到存在校正扫视。此外，比较治疗前和治疗后头晕障碍量表评分。
结果：57例患者被诊断为后管BPPV，16例患有水平运河BPPV。在后管BPPV患者中，受累运河VOR增益与同一侧的其他运河之间没有差异（P=.639）。涉及的水平运河与相对的水平运河没有区别。与后管BPPV患者相比，侧管BPPV患者在治疗后表现出更显著的改善。
结论：视频头脉冲测试可能无法用于评估BPPV的受累管；但是，它可以用来评估治疗的效率，尤其是在侧管。
方法：纳入后管和外侧管BPPV患者。在治疗前和治疗后1周进行视频头脉冲测试。注意到前庭眼反射（VOR）的增加，并与另一侧进行比较。还注意到存在校正扫视。此外，比较治疗前和治疗后头晕障碍量表评分。
结果：57例患者被诊断为后管BPPV，16例患有水平运河BPPV。在后管BPPV患者中，受累运河VOR增益与同一侧的其他运河之间没有差异（P=.639）。涉及的水平运河与相对的水平运河没有区别。与后管BPPV患者相比，侧管BPPV患者在治疗后表现出更显著的改善。
结论：视频头脉冲测试可能无法用于评估BPPV的受累管；但是，它可以用来评估治疗的效率，尤其是在侧管。
