Graham D Cochrane1, Jennifer B Christy, Robert W Motl. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (G.D.C., J.B.C., R.W.M.); and Medical Scientist Training Program, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (G.D.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Balance disorders and dizziness are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), suggesting dysfunction of the vestibular system. Evaluating how people with MS perform on objective clinical vestibular tools will help broaden understanding of vestibular function in MS. This cross-sectional study's goal was to complete a robust battery of vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR), dynamic visual acuity (DVA), subjective visual vertical (SVV), and cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (c/oVEMP) tests in people with and without MS. METHODS: Forty people with relapsing-remitting MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≤6.5) and 20 controls completed the vestibular testing battery. Results were compared between groups and correlations with EDSS scores were calculated. RESULTS: People with MS were less able to visually cancel their VOR and showed a larger variance in response on SVV. EDSS significantly correlated with VOR cancellation, SVV variance, and DVA lines lost; linear regression showed that VOR cancellation and SVV variance significantly predicted EDSS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Vestibular functions requiring central integration of vestibular information, but not reflexive vestibular functions like VEMP, were impaired in people with MS and correlated with EDSS, suggesting that clinical evaluation of functions requiring central integration best evaluates MS-related vestibular dysfunction. Measures assessing central vestibular integration and not vestibular reflexes may be more sensitive to detecting vestibular deficits in people with mild to moderate MS.Video Abstract available for more insight from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A344).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Balance disorders and dizziness are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), suggesting dysfunction of the vestibular system. Evaluating how people with MS perform on objective clinical vestibular tools will help broaden understanding of vestibular function in MS. This cross-sectional study's goal was to complete a robust battery of vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR), dynamic visual acuity (DVA), subjective visual vertical (SVV), and cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (c/oVEMP) tests in people with and without MS. METHODS: Forty people with relapsing-remitting MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≤6.5) and 20 controls completed the vestibular testing battery. Results were compared between groups and correlations with EDSS scores were calculated. RESULTS: People with MS were less able to visually cancel their VOR and showed a larger variance in response on SVV. EDSS significantly correlated with VOR cancellation, SVV variance, and DVA lines lost; linear regression showed that VOR cancellation and SVV variance significantly predicted EDSS. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Vestibular functions requiring central integration of vestibular information, but not reflexive vestibular functions like VEMP, were impaired in people with MS and correlated with EDSS, suggesting that clinical evaluation of functions requiring central integration best evaluates MS-related vestibular dysfunction. Measures assessing central vestibular integration and not vestibular reflexes may be more sensitive to detecting vestibular deficits in people with mild to moderate MS.Video Abstract available for more insight from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A344).
Authors: I Ulozienė; M Totilienė; R Balnytė; A Kuzminienė; R Kregždytė; A Paulauskas; T Blažauskas; V Marozas; V Uloza; D Kaski Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Richard L Doty; Michael R MacGillivray; Hussam Talab; Isabelle Tourbier; Megan Reish; Sherrie Davis; Jennifer L Cuzzocreo; Neil T Shepard; Dzung L Pham Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Reiko E Sakai; Daniel J Feller; Kristin M Galetta; Steven L Galetta; Laura J Balcer Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Hina Garg; Leland E Dibble; Michael C Schubert; Jim Sibthorp; K Bo Foreman; Eduard Gappmaier Journal: Anat Rec (Hoboken) Date: 2018-08-05 Impact factor: 2.064
Authors: Andrew R Wagner; Colin R Grove; Brian J Loyd; Leland E Dibble; Michael C Schubert Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 2.974
Authors: Graham D Cochrane; Jennifer B Christy; Brian M Sandroff; Robert W Motl Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Cristina García-Muñoz; María Jesús Casuso-Holgado; Juan Carlos Hernández-Rodríguez; Elena Pinero-Pinto; Rocío Palomo-Carrión; María-Dolores Cortés-Vega Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 2.692