OBJECTIVES: To determine whether cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) thresholds or ocular VEMP (oVEMP) amplitudes are more sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome (SCDS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with SCDS (mean age 48 yr; range, 31-66 yr) and 25 age-matched controls (mean age 48 yr; range, 30-66 yr). INTERVENTION(S): cVEMP and oVEMP in response to air-conducted sound. All patients underwent surgery for repair of SCDS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): cVEMP thresholds; oVEMP n10 and peak-to-peak amplitudes. RESULTS: cVEMP threshold results showed sensitivity and specificity ranging from 80% to 100% for the diagnosis of SCDS. In contrast, oVEMP amplitudes demonstrated sensitivity and specificity greater than 90%. CONCLUSION: oVEMP amplitudes are superior to cVEMP thresholds in the diagnosis of SCDS.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) thresholds or ocular VEMP (oVEMP) amplitudes are more sensitive and specific in the diagnosis of superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome (SCDS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with SCDS (mean age 48 yr; range, 31-66 yr) and 25 age-matched controls (mean age 48 yr; range, 30-66 yr). INTERVENTION(S): cVEMP and oVEMP in response to air-conducted sound. All patients underwent surgery for repair of SCDS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): cVEMP thresholds; oVEMP n10 and peak-to-peak amplitudes. RESULTS: cVEMP threshold results showed sensitivity and specificity ranging from 80% to 100% for the diagnosis of SCDS. In contrast, oVEMP amplitudes demonstrated sensitivity and specificity greater than 90%. CONCLUSION: oVEMP amplitudes are superior to cVEMP thresholds in the diagnosis of SCDS.
Authors: Kristen L Janky; Kimanh D Nguyen; Miriam Welgampola; M Geraldine Zuniga; John P Carey Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: John J Rosowski; Jocelyn E Songer; Hideko H Nakajima; Kelly M Brinsko; Saumil N Merchant Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Howard W Francis; Ira Papel; Ioan Lina; Wayne Koch; David Tunkel; Paul Fuchs; Sandra Lin; David Kennedy; Robert Ruben; Fred Linthicum; Bernard Marsh; Simon Best; John Carey; Andrew Lane; Patrick Byrne; Paul Flint; David W Eisele Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2015-08-22 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Jorge Otero-Millan; Carolina Treviño; Ariel Winnick; David S Zee; John P Carey; Amir Kheradmand Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: J C Luers; D Pazen; H Meister; M Lauxmann; A Eiber; D Beutner; K B Hüttenbrink Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: M Geraldine Zuniga; Marcela Davalos-Bichara; Michael C Schubert; John P Carey; Kristen L Janky Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Kristen L Janky; Kimanh D Nguyen; Miriam Welgampola; M Geraldine Zuniga; John P Carey Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.311