| Literature DB >> 28179894 |
Angel Batuecas-Caletrio1, Jorge Rey-Martinez2, Gabriel Trinidad-Ruiz3, Eusebi Matiño-Soler4, Santiago Santa Cruz-Ruiz1, Angel Muñoz-Herrera1, Nicolas Perez-Fernandez5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate vestibular compensation via measurement of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) following vestibular schwannoma surgery and its relationship with changes in saccades strategy after surgery. PATIENTS: Thirty-six consecutive patients with vestibular schwannomas, without brainstem compression, underwent surgical resection. Patients were recruited from University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain.Entities:
Keywords: PR score; caloric; covert saccade; overt saccade; vestibular compensation; vestibular schwannoma; video head impulse test
Year: 2017 PMID: 28179894 PMCID: PMC5263125 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Automated saccade analysis and PR score algorithm.
| Saccade recognition sequence | PR score algorithm | |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Low pass filter of the head and eye graphs | |
| Step 2 | Relative max values recognition, using conditions | Group PR score |
| Minimum velocity: 65°/s | Coefficient of variation of peaks in each group | |
| Minimum distance between peaks in eye graph: 15 samples | The group is determined by the order of appearance of saccades | |
| Minimum distance with head velocity peak: 10 samples | ||
| Step 3 | Outlier detection, only the two first peak values with +20 or −15 difference from mean of peaks was unmarked as saccades | |
| 2.5 × (0.8 × CV1 + 0.2 × CV2), where CV1 is coefficient of variation of first registered saccades and CV2 is coefficient of variation of second registered saccades | ||
| Global PR score corrections | ||
| If score is >100, the value is reset to 100 | ||
| If score is >35, the value is adjusted with the number of peaks detected: if only a few impulses have peaks over 35, these impulses have a low impact on the PR SCORE | ||
Main steps in saccade recognition sequence and the PR score algorithm. For time samples, a frame rate of 250 frames per second is assumed.
Figure 1Two real data cases are plotted to illustrate the PR score significance. In the first (left) plot, the saccadic eye responses appear mainly on a narrow interval of time; in this gathered plot, the computed PR score has a low value (PR score = 8). In the second (right plot), the saccadic eye responses appear on a wide interval of time; even in some cases, the first responses appear after the second responses registered on other impulses; in this scattered plot, the computed PR score is much higher (PR score = 68). “X” mark is for the first group of detected saccades, “*” mark is for the second detected group, and “+” mark is for the third detected group. Y axis is head and eye velocity in degree per second, and X axis is the time domain measured in samples (at an approximated sampling frequency of 250 frames per second). Both plots and PR score measurements were obtained using the open source software HITCal 4.0 (www.mlibra.com).
Mean PR values and SDs in the patient’s follow-up according to the different variables.
| Mean PR values | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 5.6 ± 2.3 | 13.2 ± 4.5 |
| Post 1 | 35.4 ± 7.2 | 30.5 ± 6.7 | 20.5 ± 5.6 |
| Post 2 | 29.6 ± 6.1 | 22.9 ± 5.7 | 16.7 ± 5.1 |
| Post 3 | 25.3 ± 4.9 | 18.4 ± 4.2 | 14.6 ± 4.3 |
| Post 4 | 17.1 ± 4.1 | 15.6 ± 3.8 | 13.3 ± 3.6 |
| Pre | 0.6 ± 0.4 | 8.2 ± 3.4 | |
| Post 1 | 36.6 ± 7.7 | 32.9 ± 8.7 | |
| Post 2 | 28.7 ± 6.2 | 25.4 ± 7.0 | |
| Post 3 | 24.2 ± 4.8 | 19.4 ± 6.1 | |
| Post 4 | 18.3 ± 3.9 | 17.6 ± 5.6 | |
| Pre | 0.6 ± 0.4 | 6.2 ± 2.8 | 16.4 ± 4.1 |
| Post 1 | 36.6 ± 7.7 | 34.1 ± 9.1 | 25.3 ± 5.4 |
| Post 2 | 28.7 ± 6.2 | 27.2 ± 7.8 | 20.1 ± 4.2 |
| Post 3 | 24.2 ± 4.8 | 21.5 ± 5.6 | 18.4 ± 4.0 |
| Post 4 | 18.3 ± 3.9 | 17.6 ± 5.1 | 14.3 ± 4.1 |
| Pre | 5.4 ± 2.3 | 0 | |
| Post 1 | 36.2 ± 9.1 | 37.5 ± 8.3 | |
| Post 2 | 26.6 ± 7.6 | 27.6 ± 7.3 | |
| Post 3 | 21.8 ± 5.8 | 22.7 ± 5.1 | |
| Post 4 | 15.7 ± 4.1 | 16.5 ± 4.2 | |
| Pre | 7.8 ± 3.4 | 0 | |
| Post 1 | 32.6 ± 8.1 | 37.5 ± 8.3 | |
| Post 2 | 24.5 ± 6.9 | 27.6 ± 7.3 | |
| Post 3 | 19.7 ± 5.3 | 22.7 ± 5.1 | |
| Post 4 | 15.3 ± 3.7 | 16.5 ± 4.2 | |
| Pre | 16.8 ± 5.2 | 0 | |
| Post 1 | 27.1 ± 7.7 | 37.5 ± 8.3 | |
| Post 2 | 20.9 ± 5.5 | 27.6 ± 7.3 | |
| Post 3 | 18.3 ± 3.8 | 22.7 ± 5.1 | |
| Post 4 | 14.3 ± 3.2 | 16.5 ± 4.2 | |
Figure 2(A) Mean PR score according to canal paresis before surgery and during follow-up. Group A are patients with a normal caloric test, Group B are patients with a partial canal paresis from 26 to 70%, and Group C are patients with a severe canal paresis (more than 71%). (B) Mean PR score according to gain in the vHIT before surgery. Group A showing patients with normal gain (≥0.80) and Group B for low gain (<0.80). (C) Mean PR score according to gain in the vHIT before surgery. Group A showing patients with normal gain (≥0.80), Group B for low gain (<0.80 and >0.46), and Group C when gain <0.46 (“very low gain”). (D) Mean PR score in patients without saccades (Group “no saccades”) and patients with both covert and overt saccades (Group “covert and overt saccades”) before surgery.