Luca Verrecchia1, Katarina Galle Barrett2, Eva Karltorp3. 1. Hearing and Balance Section, Ear Nose and Throat Department, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden; ENT Section, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. Electronic address: luca.verrecchia@ki.se. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Sweden. 3. Ear and Neck Surgery, Ear Nose and Throat Department, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden; ENT Section, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The pediatric vestibular assessment has developed significantly in the past two decades, especially in terms of assessment of cochlear implant (CI) candidates. Different methods and test protocols have been applied, however without a general consensus. We present here the feasibility, validity and reliability of a child friendly vestibular testing in use at our department for the assessment of pediatric CI candidates. METHODS: The test battery consisted of head impulse test (HIT), video head impulse test (vHIT), cervical evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) and mini ice water caloric test (mIWC), all adapted from previous methods, mentioned in literature. We defined specific criteria for test feasibility, for test validity and test positivity (i.e. indicating vestibular insufficiency). The reliability of the whole protocol was assessed with test agreement analysis. RESULTS: Complete data from 35 children, all CI candidates, age ranging 4-79 months (67% under 2 years) and recruited over two years, were obtained. All but one child could complete at least one test with valid responses bilaterally, with the best compliance for HIT (97,1%) and least for cVEMP (68,6%). Feasibility did not appear to be affected by age or hearing loss etiology. Among the valid responses there was a substantial test agreement between HIT and vHIT, moderate agreement between vHIT/HIT and mIWC and no apparent agreement between the canal tests and cVEMP. Simple clinical guidelines were introduced to solve the tests' disagreement and to improve the protocol reliability: a) a pathological response had to be confirmed in at least two different canal tests and in at least three cVEMP trials; b) a canal/otolith disagreement was interpreted as a partial vestibular loss to be opposed to a complete vestibular insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The search for vestibular insufficiency in infants and young children can be attained with an opportunely adapted vestibular assessment, such the test battery proposed here. That assessment resulted easy to conduct and to interpret in a representative sample of CI candidates in preschool age, the most of whom were younger than 2 years. This method appears to particularly suit the demands of a vestibular assessment in young children CI candidates.
OBJECTIVES: The pediatric vestibular assessment has developed significantly in the past two decades, especially in terms of assessment of cochlear implant (CI) candidates. Different methods and test protocols have been applied, however without a general consensus. We present here the feasibility, validity and reliability of a child friendly vestibular testing in use at our department for the assessment of pediatric CI candidates. METHODS: The test battery consisted of head impulse test (HIT), video head impulse test (vHIT), cervical evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) and mini ice water caloric test (mIWC), all adapted from previous methods, mentioned in literature. We defined specific criteria for test feasibility, for test validity and test positivity (i.e. indicating vestibular insufficiency). The reliability of the whole protocol was assessed with test agreement analysis. RESULTS: Complete data from 35 children, all CI candidates, age ranging 4-79 months (67% under 2 years) and recruited over two years, were obtained. All but one child could complete at least one test with valid responses bilaterally, with the best compliance for HIT (97,1%) and least for cVEMP (68,6%). Feasibility did not appear to be affected by age or hearing loss etiology. Among the valid responses there was a substantial test agreement between HIT and vHIT, moderate agreement between vHIT/HIT and mIWC and no apparent agreement between the canal tests and cVEMP. Simple clinical guidelines were introduced to solve the tests' disagreement and to improve the protocol reliability: a) a pathological response had to be confirmed in at least two different canal tests and in at least three cVEMP trials; b) a canal/otolith disagreement was interpreted as a partial vestibular loss to be opposed to a complete vestibular insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The search for vestibular insufficiency in infants and young children can be attained with an opportunely adapted vestibular assessment, such the test battery proposed here. That assessment resulted easy to conduct and to interpret in a representative sample of CI candidates in preschool age, the most of whom were younger than 2 years. This method appears to particularly suit the demands of a vestibular assessment in young children CI candidates.