Dynamic visual acuity in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

Abstract

Background: Head motions cause transient vertigo in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and may reduce visual ability.

Objectives: The aim is to investigate the clinical utility of dynamic visual acuity (DVA) test in those patients.

Material and methods: Thirty patients, 11 with lateral canal BPPV (6 geotropic and 5 ageotropic), and 19 with posterior canal BPPV, were evaluated with DVA test during rapid horizontal (left and right) and vertical (up and down) head movements. Patients were asked to identify the direction of the letter C, ranging from 1.0 to 0.0 logMAR, while moving their heads. The orientation of the optotype was randomly changed by a computer-generated program. Ten subjects were served as control. Data were analyzed with a one-way ANOVA. p Value <.01 was considered significant.

Results: Patients with LC and PC BPPV had significant DVA loss as compared with control subjects (p < .01). However, no significant difference was found in vDVA between patients with LC and PC BPPV, or in hDVA between ipsilesional and contralesional head rotation in patients with LC or PC BPPV (LC: p = .755, PC: p = .765).

Conclusions: Patients with BPPV may have impaired visual acuity, particularly during acute onset condition. Present study indicated that DVA test was not helpful for differentiation of the pathologic and normal ears.

Chinese abstract

背景：头部运动会导致良性阵发性位置性眩晕（BPPV）患者出现短暂性眩晕, 并可能降低视觉能力。

目的：目的是研究动态视力（DVA）测试对这些患者的临床效用。

材料和方法：用DVA试验对30名患者进行快速水平向（左右）和垂直向（上下）头部运动状态的评估, 其中11名患有侧管BPPV（6名向地性和5名年龄性）和19名患有后管BPPV。要求患者在摇动头部时识别字母C的方向, 范围从1.0到0.0 logMAR。视标方向由计算机程序随机改变。十名受试者作为对照。使用单向ANOVA来分析数据。 p值为<.01被认为是显著的。

结果：与对照组相比, LC和PC BPPV患者的DVA损失明显（p <.01）。然而, LC和PC BPPV患者的vDVA或LC或PC BPPV患者的健侧和对侧头部旋转之间的hDVA无显著差异（LC：p = .755, PC：p = .765）。

结论：BPPV患者的视力可能受损, 特别是在急性发作期间。目前的研究表明, DVA测试对区分病理性耳和正常耳没有作用。

Keywords:

• Dynamic visual acuity
• benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
• vestibulo-ocular reflex

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.