Literature DB >> 29447427

Vestibulo-ocular reflex gain values in the suppression head impulse test of healthy subjects.

Jorge Rey-Martinez1, Izaskun Thomas-Arrizabalaga1, Juan Manuel Espinosa-Sanchez2, Angel Batuecas-Caletrio3, Gabriel Trinidad-Ruiz4, Eusebi Matiño-Soler5, Nicolas Perez-Fernandez6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there are differences in vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) gain for suppression head impulse (SHIMP) and head impulse (HIMP) video head impulse test paradigms, and if so, what are their causes.
METHODS: Prospective multicenter observational double-blind nonrandomized clinical study was performed by collecting 80 healthy subjects from four reference hospitals. SHIMP data was postprocessed to eliminate impulses in which early SHIMP saccades were detected. Differences between HIMP and SHIMP VOR gain values were statistically evaluated. Head impulse maximum velocity, gender, age, direction of impulse, and hospital center were considered as possible influential factors.
RESULTS: A small significant statistical difference between HIMP and SHIMP VOR gain values was found on repeated measures analysis of variance (-0.05 ± 0.006, P < 0.001). Optimized linear model showed a significant influence of age variable on the observed differences for HIMP and SHIMP gain values and did not find influence between gain values differences and maximum head impulse velocity. Both HIMP and SHIMP VOR gain values were significant lower (-0.09, P < 0.001) when the impulses were performed to the left side.
CONCLUSION: We had observed a difference in SHIMP and HIMP gain values not adequately explained by known gain modification factors. The persistence of this slight but significant difference indicates that there are more factors causing lower SHIMP VOR gain values. This difference must to be considered in further studies as well as in the clinical SHIMP testing protocols. We hypothesized that VOR phasic response inhibition could be the underlying cause of this difference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 128:2383-2389, 2018.
© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Keywords:  SHIMP; VOR; gain; suppression; vHIT

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29447427     DOI: 10.1002/lary.27107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  5 in total

1.  Suppression head impulse test paradigm (SHIMP) characteristics in people with Parkinson's disease compared to healthy controls.

Authors:  Kim E Hawkins; Jorge Rey-Martinez; Elodie Chiarovano; Serene S Paul; Ariadna Valldeperes; Hamish G MacDougall; Ian S Curthoys
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The feasibility of SHIMP for judging subjective vertigo and recovery in patients with vestibular neuritis.

Authors:  Jin Liu; Hui Leng
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  A review on screening tests for vestibular disorders.

Authors:  Helen S Cohen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 2.974

4.  Suppression Head Impulse Test (SHIMP) versus Head Impulse Test (HIMP) When Diagnosing Bilateral Vestibulopathy.

Authors:  Tessa van Dooren; Dmitrii Starkov; Florence Lucieer; Bieke Dobbels; Miranda Janssen; Nils Guinand; Angelica Pérez Fornos; Herman Kingma; Vincent Van Rompaey; Raymond van de Berg
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 5.  Diagnosing vestibular hypofunction: an update.

Authors:  Dmitrii Starkov; Michael Strupp; Maksim Pleshkov; Herman Kingma; Raymond van de Berg
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 4.849

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.