Kristen L Janky1, Jessie Patterson2, Neil Shepard3, Megan Thomas1, Kamran Barin4, Tom Creutz1, Kendra Schmid5, Julie A Honaker2,6. 1. Department of Audiology, Boys Town National Research Hospital. 2. University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln. 3. Mayo Clinic - Rochester, Minnesota. 4. The Ohio State University - Columbus (Emeritus), Columbus. 5. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 6. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 1) Characterize corrective saccades (CS) in normal controls, and 2) examine the sensitivity of the video head impulse test (vHIT) for identifying vestibular loss using both gain and CS. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective combined with retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Seventy subjects with normal vestibular function served as controls (mean age, 44.1 yr; range, 10-78) and data from 49 patients with unilateral and bilateral vestibular loss was retrospectively reviewed (mean age, 50; range, 7-81). INTERVENTION: vHIT; individual horizontal head impulses were then analyzed in MATLAB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Horizontal vHIT gain, CS peak velocity, frequency, and latency. RESULTS: There was not an age effect for CS velocity or latency, and only a weak relationship between CS frequency and age in the control group. Gain and CS latency were the only parameters affected by impulse side, demonstrating higher gain and longer latency on the right. The group with vestibular loss had significantly lower mean vHIT gain, higher mean CS frequency, higher mean CS velocity, earlier CS latency, and smaller mean CS standard deviations of the latency compared with the control group.When all factors were analyzed separately by logistic regression, vHIT gain provided the best classification (83.8%), closely followed by CS frequency (83.1%). Using a two variable approach (both gain and CS frequency) yielded the best diagnostic accuracy (overall classification = 84.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Along with gain, incorporating CS frequency in interpreting vHIT improves diagnostic accuracy. A repeatable CS (>81.89%) and/or low gain (<0.78) indicate vestibular loss.
OBJECTIVE: 1) Characterize corrective saccades (CS) in normal controls, and 2) examine the sensitivity of the video head impulse test (vHIT) for identifying vestibular loss using both gain and CS. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective combined with retrospective review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Seventy subjects with normal vestibular function served as controls (mean age, 44.1 yr; range, 10-78) and data from 49 patients with unilateral and bilateral vestibular loss was retrospectively reviewed (mean age, 50; range, 7-81). INTERVENTION: vHIT; individual horizontal head impulses were then analyzed in MATLAB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Horizontal vHIT gain, CS peak velocity, frequency, and latency. RESULTS: There was not an age effect for CS velocity or latency, and only a weak relationship between CS frequency and age in the control group. Gain and CS latency were the only parameters affected by impulse side, demonstrating higher gain and longer latency on the right. The group with vestibular loss had significantly lower mean vHIT gain, higher mean CS frequency, higher mean CS velocity, earlier CS latency, and smaller mean CS standard deviations of the latency compared with the control group.When all factors were analyzed separately by logistic regression, vHIT gain provided the best classification (83.8%), closely followed by CS frequency (83.1%). Using a two variable approach (both gain and CS frequency) yielded the best diagnostic accuracy (overall classification = 84.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Along with gain, incorporating CS frequency in interpreting vHIT improves diagnostic accuracy. A repeatable CS (>81.89%) and/or low gain (<0.78) indicate vestibular loss.
Authors: Georgios Mantokoudis; Ali S Saber Tehrani; Jorge C Kattah; Karin Eibenberger; Cynthia I Guede; David S Zee; David E Newman-Toker Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Kristen L Janky; Jessie N Patterson; Neil T Shepard; Megan L A Thomas; Julie A Honaker Journal: J Am Acad Audiol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.664
Authors: Eric R Anson; Robin T Bigelow; John P Carey; Quan-Li Xue; Stephanie Studenski; Michael C Schubert; Konrad P Weber; Yuri Agrawal Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Leigh A McGarvie; Hamish G MacDougall; G Michael Halmagyi; Ann M Burgess; Konrad P Weber; Ian S Curthoys Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Susan King; Kilian Dahlem; Faisal Karmali; Konstantina M Stankovic; D Bradley Welling; Richard F Lewis Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Sebastien P F JanssensdeVarebeke; Julie Moyaert; Erik Fransen; Britt Bulen; Celine Neesen; Katrien Devroye; Raymond van de Berg; Ronald J E Pennings; Vedat Topsakal; Olivier Vanderveken; Guy Van Camp; Vincent Van Rompaey Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2021 Nov-Dec 01 Impact factor: 3.570