Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2012
Can vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials help differentiate Ménière disease from vestibular migraine?
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zuniga M Geraldine, Janky Kristen L, Schubert Michael C, Carey John P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To characterize both cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP, oVEMP) responses to air-conducted sound (ACS) and midline taps in Ménière disease (MD), vestibular migraine (VM), and controls, as well as to determine if cVEMP or oVEMP responses can differentiate MD from VM.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Unilateral definite MD patients (n = 20), VM patients (n = 21) by modified Neuhauser criteria, and age-matched controls (n = 28). cVEMP testing used ACS (clicks), and oVEMP testing used ACS (clicks and 500-Hz tone bursts) and midline tap stimuli (reflex hammer and Mini-Shaker). Outcome parameters were cVEMP peak-to-peak amplitudes and oVEMP n10 amplitudes.
RESULTS: Relative to controls, MD and VM groups both showed reduced click-evoked cVEMP (P < .001) and oVEMP (P < .001) amplitudes. Only the MD group showed reduction in tone-evoked amplitudes for oVEMP. Tone-evoked oVEMPs differentiated MD from controls (P = .001) and from VM (P = .007). The oVEMPs in response to the reflex hammer and Mini-Shaker midline taps showed no differences between groups (P > .210).
CONCLUSIONS: Using these techniques, VM and MD behaved similarly on most of the VEMP test battery. A link in their pathophysiology may be responsible for these responses. The data suggest a difference in 500-Hz tone burst-evoked oVEMP responses between MD and MV as a group. However, no VEMP test that was investigated segregated individuals with MD from those with VM.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Unilateral definite MD patients (n = 20), VM patients (n = 21) by modified Neuhauser criteria, and age-matched controls (n = 28). cVEMP testing used ACS (clicks), and oVEMP testing used ACS (clicks and 500-Hz tone bursts) and midline tap stimuli (reflex hammer and Mini-Shaker). Outcome parameters were cVEMP peak-to-peak amplitudes and oVEMP n10 amplitudes.
RESULTS: Relative to controls, MD and VM groups both showed reduced click-evoked cVEMP (P < .001) and oVEMP (P < .001) amplitudes. Only the MD group showed reduction in tone-evoked amplitudes for oVEMP. Tone-evoked oVEMPs differentiated MD from controls (P = .001) and from VM (P = .007). The oVEMPs in response to the reflex hammer and Mini-Shaker midline taps showed no differences between groups (P > .210).
CONCLUSIONS: Using these techniques, VM and MD behaved similarly on most of the VEMP test battery. A link in their pathophysiology may be responsible for these responses. The data suggest a difference in 500-Hz tone burst-evoked oVEMP responses between MD and MV as a group. However, no VEMP test that was investigated segregated individuals with MD from those with VM.