406
Views
14
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Changes of video head impulse test results in lateral semicircular canal plane by different peak head velocities in patients with vestibular neuritis

, , , , , , , & show all
Pages 785-789 | Received 29 Mar 2018, Accepted 22 May 2018, Published online: 17 Jul 2018
 

Abstract

Background: The peak head velocity influences on the video head impulse test (vHIT) results, but it has been not known how much the difference is.

Aims: To evaluate the clinical evidence for the superiority of high-velocity compared to low-velocity vHIT.

Material and methods: vHIT was performed in 30 patients with vestibular neuritis using two peak head velocities (mean 80 vs. 240°/s). vHIT gains and parameters of corrective saccades (CSs) were compared. A vHIT gain of ≤0.8 or a peak CS velocity of ≥100°/s was considered pathologic.

Results: The vHIT gains were significantly lower (mean 0.5 vs. 0.6), and GA was larger (35 vs. 25%) at high-velocity vHIT, compared to low-velocity vHIT. CSs were significantly more frequent (100 vs. 80%) and peak CS velocities were larger (252 vs. 112°/s) at high-velocity vHIT. The abnormal rates based on vHIT gains were higher (90% vs. 73%) and CSs occurred more frequently (100% vs. 80%) at high-velocity vHIT. The abnormal rates based on the peak CS velocity were significantly higher at high-velocity vHIT (100% vs. 57%).

Conclusion: High-velocity vHIT is superior to low-velocity vHIT with a difference of 17–20% based on pathologic vHIT gains and presence of CSs.

Chinese abstract

背景:峰值磁头速度对视频磁头脉冲测试(vHIT)结果有影响, 但差异到底有多大还是未知数。

目的:评估相较于低速vHIT, 高速vHIT的优越性的临床证据。

材料和方法:使用两个峰值磁头速度(平均值80°/ s相对于240°/ s)对30名前庭神经炎患者进行vHIT检测。比较vHIT增益和修正扫视参数(CS)。 vHIT增益≤0.8或峰值CS速度≥100°/ s被认为是病理性的。

结果:与低速vHIT相比, 在高速vHIT时, vHIT增益明显较低(平均值为0.5对0.6), GA较大(35%对25%)。在高速vHIT时, CS更频繁(100% 对80%), 峰值CS速度更大(252°/ s对112°/ s)。基于vHIT增益, 异常率在高速vHIT时较高(90%对73%), 而CS更频繁(100%对80%)。基于峰值CS速度, 异常率在高速度vHIT时显著更高(100%对57%)。

结论:基于病理性vHIT获益和CSs的存在, 高速vHIT优于低速vHIT, 差异为17-20%。

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.