年龄因素对直流电刺激诱发的前庭诱发肌源性电位的影响

目的 评估年龄因素对直流电刺激(GVS)诱发的颈肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(cVEMP)和眼肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(oVEMP)的影响。 方法 选择健康志愿者61名(122耳)作为研究对象,22~81岁,平均(45.0±13.8)岁。按年龄分为20~40岁组(26例,52耳)、41~60岁组(24例,48耳)以及>60岁组(11例,22耳),分别记录GVS-cVEMP和GVS-oVEMP。计算GVS-c/oVEMP在不同年龄段的引出率、阈值、潜伏期、振幅、振幅不对称比(interaural amplitude asymmetryratio,IAR),采用SPSS18.0软件进行统计学分析。 结果 GVS-cVEMP在20~40岁、41~60岁、>60岁年龄段的引出率分别为96.15%、89.58%和95.45%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。GVS-oVEMP在20~40岁、41~60岁、>60岁年龄段的引出率分别为98.07%、91.67%和72.13%,随着年龄增长逐渐降低(P<0.05)。从参数分析来看,cVEMP的引出率、阈值、p1潜伏期、n1潜伏期、振幅和振幅不对称比在不同年龄组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);随着年龄增大,oVEMP的引出率下降、阈值增高、振幅减小(P<0.05),其他参数年龄组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 随着年龄的增长,周围前庭系统的功能降低,有可能会对直流电刺激诱发的VEMP产生影响。     

原发性良性阵发性位置性眩晕患者前庭诱发肌源性电位检测的意义

目的：探讨检测眼肌前庭诱发肌源性电位（oVEMP）和颈肌前庭诱发肌源性电位（cVEMP）对单侧原发性良性阵发性位置性眩晕（BPPV）患者进行可能发病部位的定位诊断价值。方法：对52例单侧原发性BP-PV患者（BPPV组）和38例正常人（对照组）分别进行气导短纯音诱发的oVEMP和cVEMP检测,分析两种反射的引出率、潜伏期、振幅等数据。结果;BPPV组患侧oVEMP的引出率为46．15％,cVEMP的引出率为67．31％;其健侧oVEMP的引出率为48．08％,cVEMP的引出率为65．38％。对照组左侧oVEMP的引出率84．21％,cVEMP的引出率92．11％;右侧oVEMP的引出率为81．58％,cVEMP的引出率为94．74％。对照组双侧cVEMP和oVEMP的P1、N1潜伏期及N1-P1振幅值差异均无统计学意义。BPPV组和对照组cVEMP和oVEMP耳间振幅比及不对称率差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：单侧原发性BPPV患者双侧前庭耳石器传导通路功能受损状况,可以通过oVEMP和cVEMP检测进行客观评估,并且oVEMP的异常率比cVEMP高。     

气导声刺激前庭诱发肌源性电位在正常儿童中的表现

目的 探讨研究正常儿童中气导声刺激诱发的眼性前庭诱发肌源性电位(oVEMP)和颈性前庭肌源性诱发电位(cVEMP)的各项参数指标,并对正常值进行统计学处理分析。 方法 选择4~10岁听力正常健康儿童52例,以500 Hz短纯音作为刺激音,分别行 oVEMP和cVEMP检测,记录左、右耳引出率及波形参数,并采用SPSS统计软件进行统计学处理分析。 结果 双耳皆未引出oVEMP 2例,单耳可引出oVEMP4例,oVEMP总体引出率为92%。双耳皆未引出cVEMP 2例,cVEMP总体引出率为96%。oVEMP与cVEMP的P1潜伏期分别为(17.07±0.89)ms、(15.55±1.58)ms;N1潜伏期分别为(12.39±0.91)ms、(23.10±2.29)ms;N1P1间期分别为(4.68±0.88)ms、(7.83±1.56)ms;oVEMP与cVEMP的振幅分别为(7.24±4.79)μV、(197.40±118.37)μV。双耳间oVEMP及cVEMP振幅不对称比分别为(19.03±12.50)%、(22.16±18.64)%。患儿左右耳的潜伏期,P1N1间期及振幅差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 绝大部分正常儿童经气导声刺激可引出oVEMP与cVEMP。该检测患儿依从性高,可用来评估儿童前庭功能。此研究结果可为我国的儿童气导VEMP提供正常参考值范围。     

前庭诱发肌源电位在听神经瘤诊断中的应用

目的探讨前庭诱发肌源电位在听神经瘤临床诊断中的价值。方法选取听神经瘤患者(AN)26名为研究对象,听力正常健康人30名作为对照组,两组对象均接受眼性前庭诱发肌源性电位(o VEMP)测试和颈肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(cVEMP),分析对比两组之间oVEMPs和cVEMP的引出率及各参数指标。结果与对照组相比,听神经瘤组cVEMP和oVEMP的引出率较低,cVEMP的振幅减小,c VEMP和o VEMP的幅度比和不对称比(AR)增大,oVEMP的n10潜伏期较长,cVEMP和oVEMP结果与瘤体大小、听力损失程度无明显相关性。结论 c VEMP和oVEMP检测对听神经瘤的诊断有一定参考价值;引出率较低、VEMP振幅减小可能有助于听神经瘤筛查和诊断;cVEMP和oVEMP易于操作且稳定性高,联合检查可提高听神经瘤的检出率。     

全聋型突发性耳聋患者的预后与前庭症状及前庭功能关系的回顾性分析

目的 探讨全聋型突发性耳聋患者的预后与前庭症状及前庭功能的关系。 方法 回顾性分析52例单侧全聋型突发性耳聋患者的前庭症状,以及眼肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(oVEMP)、颈肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(cVEMP)、视频头脉冲试验(vHIT)和冷热试验结果,观察这些患者的听力结果与前庭症状及前庭功能的关系。 结果 在52例单侧全聋型突发性耳聋患者中,有前庭症状、前庭功能异常的全聋型患者与无前庭症状者、功能正常者相比疗效差异有统计学意义。oVEMP、cVEMP、vHIT和冷热试验四项结果异常的全聋型患者显示出更低的治疗总有效率,oVEMP、cVEMP、vHIT和冷热试验正常的突发性耳聋患者有更高的听力恢复数值。 结论 有前庭症状、前庭功能异常的全聋型突发性耳聋患者疗效较差,oVEMP、cVEMP、vHIT和冷热试验正常的全聋型突发性耳聋患者有更好的听力恢复。前庭功能异常提示突发性聋患者的内耳病变范围较大、程度较重。     

听力正常儿童骨导前庭诱发肌源性电位正常值的建立

目的 记录听力正常儿童骨导前庭诱发肌源性电位(BC-VEMP)特征,为临床儿童前庭功能评估提供参考。 方法 选择31名(62耳)4~12岁听力正常儿童,按照年龄进行分组,4~5岁组11人(22耳),6~12岁组20人(40耳),行BC-VEMP测试。将60 dB nHL作为起始刺激强度,记录骨导刺激时颈性VEMP(cVEMP )、眼性VEMP(oVEMP)的N1潜伏期、P1潜伏期、N1-P1波间期、N1-P1波幅、波幅不对称比以及阈值。使用SPSS软件进行统计学分析。 结果 4~12岁听力正常儿童BC-VEMPs引出率为100%。4~5岁组与6~12岁组相比,BC-cVEMP的P1、N1潜伏期、P1-N1波间期、P1-N1波幅、阈值、波幅不对称比均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。两组间BC-oVEMP的N1、P1潜伏期、N1-P1波间期、N1-P1波幅、阈值、波幅不对称比均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。 结论 BC-VEMPs是一种可行的前庭功能辅助性检査手段,不同年龄段儿童BC-VEMPs正常值的建立,可为儿童前庭功能的评估提供参考。     

前庭诱发肌源性电位预测突聋患者疗效的临床价值

目的 分析单侧突发性耳聋患者的疗效,探讨前庭功能与预后的关系。 方法 回顾性分析59例(59耳)突发性耳聋患者的临床资料,观察临床疗效,根据前庭功能结果探讨对预后的影响。 结果 59例突发性耳聋患者在治疗前共进行了183项前庭功能检查,眼性前庭诱发肌源性电位(oVEMP)和颈性前庭诱发肌源性电位(cVEMP)异常的突聋患者显示出更低的治疗总有效率;oVEMP和cVEMP正常的突聋患者受损频率听力提高更明显。冷热试验(Caloric Test)和视频头脉冲试验(vHIT)的正常与否对突聋患者的总有效率和受损听力的提高无影响。cVEMP和oVEMP都异常的患者治疗无效率比仅其中一项异常的患者高,受损听力恢复程度也比仅其中一项异常的患者差。 结论 oVEMP和cVEMP异常的突聋患者疗效较差,oVEMP和cVEMP正常的突聋患者有更好的听力恢复。oVEMP和cVEMP功能可能是预测突发性聋患者预后的有效指标。前庭功能异常提示突发性聋患者的内耳病变范围较大、程度较重。     

骨导振动刺激诱发的前庭诱发肌源性电位

目的探讨B81骨振子在前庭诱发肌源性电位(vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, VEMPs)检测中的应用。方法对25例正常志愿者的双耳行插入式气导声刺激(air conducted sound, ACS),单侧乳突B81骨导振动刺激(bone conducted vibration, BCV)的VEMPs检查,并对ACS ,BCV VEMPs检查结果进行统计学分析。结果ACS ,BCV 眼肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, oVEMP)的引出率分别为92%（46/50）,98%（49/50）。BCV oVEMP与ACS oVEMP比较,两者引出率差异无统计学意义（P=0.36）;两者N1波潜伏期（P=0.00）、P1波潜伏期（P=0.00）、N1 P1波间期(P=0.01)及振幅(P=0.00)差异均具有统计学意义（P<0.05）;BCV oVEMP的N1、P1波潜伏期,N1 P1波间期均较短,而振幅较大。ACS ,BCV 颈肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential, cVEMP)的引出率均为100%（50/50）。BCV cVEMP与ACS cVEMP比较,N1波潜伏期差异无统计学意义（P=0.96）,P1波潜伏期（P=0.02）,P1 N1波间期(P=0.00)、振幅(P=0.04)均有统计学差异（P＜0.05）;BCV cVEMP的P1波潜伏期较短,P1 N1波间期较长,振幅较大。BCV oVEMP、ACS oVEMP、BCV cVEMP和ACS cVEMP的两耳间振幅不对称率（%）分别为：28.08±21.10、27.95±18.13、23.60±17.86、32.24±18.92。结论B81骨振子可以用于VEMPs的检测,骨导振动刺激在评价传导性听力损失患者的前庭耳石器功能时优于气导声刺激,可作为气导声刺激诱发VEMPs的补充检查。     

同步检测眼性和颈性前庭诱发肌源性电位的可行性研究

目的 探讨同步检测眼性前庭诱发肌源性电位(ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential,oVEMP)和颈性前庭诱发肌源性电位(cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential,cVEMP)的可行性.方法 对20例正常人及23例梅尼埃病患者分别进行oVEMP和cVEMP同步检测和单独检测,两种检测方式所用仪器和坐姿相同,检测参数设置相同,分别比较两种检测方式下两组对象oVEMP和cVEMP的振幅、潜伏期、波间期及双侧耳不对称比.结果 正常人左、右耳的oVEMP及cVEMP的引出率、振幅、潜伏期、波间期与不对称比在两种形式同步检测与各方式单独检测之间无显著差异;两种方式同步检测时梅尼埃病患者的患耳及对侧耳的oVEMP及cVEMP引出率、振幅、潜伏期、波间期及不对称比与各方式单独检测的结果也无显著差异.结论 对正常人和梅尼埃病患者,oVEMP和cVEMP检测可同步进行,但检测参数应与单独检测时设置一致.     

梅尼埃病眼肌前庭诱发肌源性电位的临床研究

目的通过对梅尼埃病(Meniere disease,MD)患者眼肌前庭诱发肌源性电位(ocular vestibular-evoked myogen-ic potential,o VEMP)结果进行分析,进一步探讨梅尼埃病患者o VEMP的临床特征。方法对66例梅尼埃病患者及27例年龄、性别与之匹配的健康人进行o VEMP测试,分析对比oVEMP的引出率及各参数指标。结果 oVEMP在病例组患侧的引出率为41.7%、健侧为55%,对照组为100%;患侧与健侧比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),患侧、健侧与对照组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。病例组患侧、健侧及对照组间o VEMP的振幅及不对称比均有统计学差异(P<0.05),然各波潜伏期相比无统计学意义。整体来讲,梅尼埃病患者oVEMP引出率随听力学分期升高而呈逐渐下降趋势。结论梅尼埃病患者无论健侧还是患侧,其oVEMP异常均较显著,且以患侧变化显著,提示MD患者的椭圆囊功能受损,oVEMP可用于评估MD患者椭圆囊功能,且进一步对其诊疗作出指导。     

Otolith dysfunction in recurrent benign paroxysmal positional vertigo after mild traumatic brain injury

Background: The pathogenesis of recurrence of traumatic benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is poorly understood by far.

Objectives: To evaluate the value of secondary otolith dysfunction using vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) test in the pathogenesis of recurrence of BPPV after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).

Material and methods: We reviewed 42 patients with BPPV after mTBI. According to recurrence, patients were divided into two groups. Both cervical VEMP (cVEMP) and ocular VEMP (oVEMP) tests were performed on all of them.

Results: We detected abnormal cVEMP responses in four (26.7%) patients in the recurrent BPPV group after mTBI and five (18.5%) patients in the non-recurrent BPPV group after mTBI, and there was no significant difference between both groups. We detected abnormal oVMEP responses in nine (60.0%) patients in the recurrent BPPV group after mTBI and six (22.2%) patients in the non-recurrent BPPV group after mTBI, and there was a significant difference between both groups.

Conclusions and significance: Our study shows that oVEMP abnormalities in recurrent BPPV group after mTBI are significantly higher than those in non-recurrent BPPV group after mTBI. Therefore, we can conclude that secondary utricular dysfunction may be a potential pathogenesis of recurrence of traumatic BPPV.     

梅尼埃病前庭功能分级的探讨

目的 建立一种新的梅尼埃病患者前庭功能分级方法,初步探索其临床意义及与梅尼埃病听力分期的相关性。 方法 收集112例单侧梅尼埃病患者资料,所有患者均完成包括纯音测听、cVEMP、oVEMP、vHIT以及冷热试验检查。冷热试验和vHIT的结果中任一项异常均视为半规管功能异常。cVEMP结果异常视为球囊功能异常,oVEMP结果异常视为椭圆囊功能异常。球囊、椭圆囊、半规管功能均正常的患者为前庭功能I级,球囊、椭圆囊、半规管功能其中1项异常者为前庭功能Ⅱ级,2项异常者为前庭功能Ⅲ级,3项均异常者为前庭功能Ⅳ级。 结果 根据听力分期,符合入组标准的95例梅尼埃病患者中Ⅰ期13例、Ⅱ期13例、Ⅲ期52例、Ⅳ期17例。患耳平均听阈为(51.86±21.70)dB HL。前庭功能检测结果cVEMP异常率63.2%,oVEMP24异常率74.7%,vHIT异常率33.7%,冷热试验异常率52.6%。前庭功能分级Ⅰ级9例、Ⅱ级28例、Ⅲ级39例、Ⅳ级19例。前庭功能分级与患者的听力差异有统计学意义(P<0.01, r=0.35)。前庭功能分级与患者梅尼埃病分期差异有统计学意义(P<0.01, r=0.35)。前庭功能分级与患者的病程差异有统计学意义(P=0.02, r=0.24)。前庭功能分级与患者的年龄差异无统计学意义(P=0.084)。 结论 梅尼埃病患者随着病程的进展,耳石器功能和半规管功能检测异常率会逐渐增加。通过对球囊、椭圆囊、半规管低频和高频功能的精细化检测,能够对梅尼埃病患者前庭功能进行精准评估。听力分期与前庭功能分级的同步评估能够反映患者疾病的进展状态,同时能够对患者治疗方案的选择和术后康复的预判起到参考作用。     

Differentiating cerebellar and brainstem lesions with ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential test

This study applied both ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (oVEMP) and cervical VEMP (cVEMP) tests in patients with cerebellar disorders to determine whether VEMP test can differentiate between cerebellar and brainstem lesions. A total of 12 patients with cerebellar disorder, including extended cerebellar lesion (involving the brainstem) in 8 and localized cerebellar lesion (excluding the brainstem) in 4, were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent caloric, visual suppression, and oVEMP and cVEMP tests via bone-conducted vibration stimuli. The abnormal rates for the caloric, visual suppression, and oVEMP and cVEMP tests were 62, 83, 88 and 75% in patients with extended cerebellar lesion and 0, 25, 0 and 0% in those with localized cerebellar lesion, respectively. The rate of abnormal oVEMP results significantly differed between the two groups, but caloric, visual suppression and cVEMP test results did not differ. In another ten healthy subjects, characteristic parameters of oVEMPs obtained under light and dark conditions did not significantly differ. In conclusion, ocular VEMP test can differentiate between cerebellar and brainstem lesions. Abnormal oVEMPs in patients with cerebellar disorder may indicate adjacent brainstem involvement.     

The effects of abnormality of cVEMP and oVEMP on rehabilitation outcomes in patients with idiopathic benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

The presence of utricular and saccular dysfunction impairs quality of life (QoL) in patients. The aims of the present study were to examine the effect of repositioning maneuvers on QoL of patients with idiopathic benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and to describe the effect of cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) or ocular VEMP (oVEMP) abnormalities on patient recovery after rehabilitation. Thirty idiopathic BPPV patients with/without otolith dysfunctions (n = 15, each group) were included in this clinical trial study. Otolith dysfunction was determined using oVEMP and cVEMP abnormalities. EcochG and caloric tests were performed to rule out other causes of secondary BPPV. The QoL in groups of patients with idiopathic BPPV was assessed using a Persian version of the dizziness handicap inventory (DHI-P) before and after treatment with Epley’s maneuver. Pre-treatment results showed significant handicaps in both groups. DHI-P scores were higher in BPPV patients with otolith dysfunction (total, functional, emotional, physical score: 34.13, 11.20, 7.06, 15.86, respectively) than those in patients without otolith dysfunction (total, functional, emotional, physical score: 25.46, 7.86, 6.13, 11.46, respectively, P < 0.05). After treatment, DHI-P scores decreased in both groups. However, in the otolith dysfunction group, DHI-P scores (total, functional, emotional, physical score: 9.20, 3.33, 1.33, 4.53, respectively) were higher than those in patients without otolith dysfunction (total, functional, emotional, physical score: 4.13, 0.93, 1.06, 2.00, respectively). In BPPV patients with cVEMP or oVEMP abnormalities, QoL is more compromised in comparison with that in BPPV patients without these dysfunctions. Otolith dysfunction enhances the negative effects of BPPV on QoL.     

Comparison of cervical vestibular evoked potentials evoked by air-conducted sound and bone-conducted vibration in vestibular Schwannoma patients

Abstract

Objective: The vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) is associated with otolithic afferents and can be used to evaluate the function of the saccule and utricle. In this study, we compared cervical VEMP evoked by stimulation with Air-conducted sound (ACS) and bone-conducted vibration (BCV) to the forehead and investigated whether BCV can be used as a substitute for ACS.

Methods: Data were obtained from 33 patients with vestibular schwannoma. Vestibular examinations were performed preoperatively. VEMP was obtained upon stimulation with ACS (ACS cVEMP) and BCV to the forehead using a minishaker (BCV cVEMP). Vestibular function was also analyzed using the caloric test and ocular VEMP (oVEMP) testing. oVEMP was measured using bone-conductive vibration to the forehead. The results of BCV cVEMP, ACS cVEMP, and oVEMP were compared by the caloric test.

Results: Rates of patients with abnormal ACS cVEMP, BCV cVEMP, oVEMP, and caloric test results were 78.8%, 75.8%, 78.8%, and 69.7%, respectively. BCV cVEMP did not correlate with ACS cVEMP, but correlated with oVEMP and caloric test results.

Conclusion: BCV cVEMP did not correlate with ACS cVEMP. Therefore, BCV cVEMP cannot be used as a substitute for ACS cVEMP.