| Literature DB >> 35735368 |
Marta Alvarez de Linera-Alperi1, Octavio Garaycochea1, Diego Calavia1, David Terrasa1, Nicolas Pérez-Fernández1, Raquel Manrique-Huarte1.
Abstract
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is one of the most common disorders that causes dizziness. The incidence of horizontal semicircular canal (HSC) BPPV ranges from 5% to 40.5% of the total number of BPPV cases diagnosed. Several studies have focused on establishing methods to treat BPPV caused by the apogeotropic variant of the HSC, namely, the Appiani maneuver (App). In 2016, a new maneuver was proposed: the Zuma e Maia maneuver (ZeM), based on inertia and gravity. The aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy of App versus ZeM in the resolution of episodes of BPPV produced by an affectation of the horizontal semicircular canal with apogeotropic nystagmus (Apo-HSC). A retrospective, quasi-experimental study was conducted. Patients attended in office (November 2014-February 2019) at a third-level hospital and underwent a vestibular otoneurology assessment. Those who were diagnosed with Apo-HSC, treated with App or ZeM, were included. To consider the efficacy of the maneuvers, the presence of symptoms and/or nystagmus at the first follow up was studied. Patients classified as "A" were those with no symptoms, no nystagmus; "A/N+": no symptoms, nystagmus present during supine roll test; "S": symptoms present. Previous history of BPPV and/or otic pathology and calcium levels were also compiled. From the 54 patients included, 74% were women. The average age was 69. Mean follow-up: 52.51 days. In those patients without previous history of BPPV (n = 35), the probability of being group "A" was 63% and 56% (p = 0.687) when treated with App and ZeM, respectively, while being "A/N+" was 79% and 87% for App and ZeM (p = 0.508). Of the 19 patients who had previous history of BPPV, 13% and 64% were group "A" when treated with App and ZeM (p = 0.043), and 25% and 82% were "A/N+" after App and ZeM, respectively (p = 0.021). In conclusion, for HSC cupulolithiasis, ZeM is more effective than App in those cases in which there is a history of previous episodes of BPPV ("A": 64% (p = 0.043); "A/N+": 82% (p = 0.021)).Entities:
Keywords: apogeotropic nystagmus; horizontal semicircular canal; inner ear; repositioning maneuvers; vertigo
Year: 2022 PMID: 35735368 PMCID: PMC9220154 DOI: 10.3390/audiolres12030035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Audiol Res ISSN: 2039-4330
Figure 1Appiani maneuver: right apogeotropic variant of HSC-BPPV. Image a: detail of horizontal canal cupulla. Red area: otoconia attached to the cupula facing the canal (C-CUP). Green area: free-floating otoconia in the anterior arm (anterior arm canalolithiasis).
Figure 2Zuma e Maia maneuver: right apogeotropic variant of HSC-BPPV: Figure a: detail of horizontal canal ampulla. Red area: otoconia attached to the cupula facing the canal (C-Cup). Green area: free-floating otoconia in the anterior arm (anterior arm canalolithiasis). Yellow area: otoconia attached to the cupula facing the utricule (U-Cup).
Figure 3Variables studied when considering the efficacy of the maneuver. In follow-up consultation, patients diagnosed with the apogeotropic variant of BPPV-HSC were first classified in two groups according to the presence/absence of symptoms. Secondly, if patients presented symptoms, they were classified in “S” group (same clinical symptoms no examination). If this were not the case, the presence/absence of nystagmus was assessed following the supine roll test. Patients with nystagmus were classified as group “A/N+” (no symptoms but still nystagmus), while patients without it were classified as group “A” (no symptoms and no nystagmus).
Summarizes the number of maneuvers for each group during follow up in cases that were initially either symptomatic or asymptomatic with nystagmus.
| Asymptomatic Rate | Appiani | Zuma e Maia |
|---|---|---|
| 1 maneuver | 57.1% | 76.9% |
| 2 maneuvers | 28.6% | 19.2% |
| 3 maneuvers | 9.5% | 3.8% |
| 4 maneuvers | 4.8% |
Summary of outcomes after the repositioning maneuver in each group of patients with or without previous episodes of BPPV.
| No Pre-BPPV | Appiani | Zuma | With Pre-BPPV | Appiani | Zuma | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 12 | 9 |
| A | 1 | 7 |
|
| A/N+ | 3 | 5 |
| A/N+ | 1 | 2 |
|
| S | 4 | 2 | S | 6 | 2 |
A: “no symptoms, no nystagmus” A/N+: “no symptoms, nystagmus present during supine roll test; “S”: symptoms present.
Figure 4Probability of reaching “A” in patients with and without a history of previous episodes of BPPV after the repositioning maneuver.
Figure 5Treatment algorithm.