| Literature DB >> 35847572 |
Sanjeev Saxena1, Bhaumik Patel2, Ravi Roy2, Himanshu Swami2, Sanajit Kumar Singh2, Sunil Goyal2, Rajeev Chugh2, Devendra Kumar Gupta2, Sween Banger2, Mahesh Ravanikutty2, Sneha Yadav2.
Abstract
Objective: To study the potential role of subjective visual vertical (SVV) as a prognostic marker for canalith repositioning maneuver (CRM) in patients with posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (PC-BPPV) for the Indian population.Entities:
Keywords: Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV); Canalith repositioning maneuver (CRM); Otoliths (canaliths); Subjective visual vertical (SVV)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35847572 PMCID: PMC9270559 DOI: 10.1016/j.joto.2022.03.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Otol ISSN: 1672-2930
Fig. 1SVV perception is tested in a dark room with the patient being seated in a chair in front of a display screen.
Age distribution among study subjects (years).
| Index | Value |
|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | 48.6 ± 10.5 |
| Median (25th-75th percentile) | 49.5 (40.25–54.75) |
| Range | 28–66 |
SVV deviation before and after CRM and following resolution of PC-BPPV (Mean ± SD).
| Case No. | Side of PC-BPPV | SVV deviation before CRM | SVV deviation after CRM | SVV deviation following PC-BPPV resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Right | 2.00 ± 1.29 | 1.35 ± 0.74 | 1.00 ± 0.74 |
| 2 | Left | 2.15 ± 1.33 | 1.50 ± 0.65 | 0.90 ± 0.93 |
| 3 | Right | 1.90 ± 1.28 | 1.00 ± 0.70 | 1.05 ± 0.79 |
| 4 | Right | 2.85 ± 1.33 | 1.40 ± 0.65 | 1.10 ± 0.43 |
| 5 | Left | 3.15 ± 0.62 | 1.50 ± 0.74 | 0.70 ± 0.48 |
| 6 | Right | 2.40 ± 0.87 | 1.05 ± 0.59 | 0.35 ± 0.41 |
| 7 | Right | 2.40 ± 1.41 | 1.60 ± 0.90 | 0.87 ± 0.65 |
| 8 | Right | 2.05 ± 1.27 | 1.30 ± 0.63 | 0.70 ± 0.48 |
| 9 | Left | 2.15 ± 1.33 | 0.90 ± 0.56 | 0.80 ± 0.53 |
| 10 | Right | 1.70 ± 0.75 | 1.10 ± 0.61 | 0.65 ± 0.47 |
| 11 | Left | 2.35 ± 1.37 | 1.20 ± 0.78 | 0.95 ± 0.59 |
| 12 | Right | 2.25 ± 1.42 | 1.20 ± 0.48 | 0.90 ± 0.73 |
| 13 | Right | 2.10 ± 1.61 | 1.35 ± 0.62 | 1.30 ± 0.75 |
| 14 | Left | 2.40 ± 1.55 | 1.55 ± 0.79 | 1.05 ± 0.76 |
| 15 | Right | 1.75 ± 1.75 | 1.05 ± 0.64 | 0.80 ± 0.53 |
| 16 | Left | 2.10 ± 1.39 | 1.40 ± 0.69 | 0.75 ± 0.58 |
| 17 | Right | 1.80 ± 1.35 | 1.45 ± 0.86 | 0.85 ± 0.70 |
| 18 | Right | 2.05 ± 1.46 | 1.40 ± 0.73 | 1.15 ± 0.75 |
| 19 | Left | 1.85 ± 1.37 | 1.05 ± 0.68 | 0.65 ± 0.62 |
| 20 | Right | 2.60 ± 1.39 | 1.50 ± 0.70 | 1.05 ± 0.68 |
| 21 | Right | 1.80 ± 1.20 | 1.20 ± 0.71 | 0.80 ± 0.75 |
| 22 | Left | 2.00 ± 1.49 | 1.15 ± 0.81 | 0.65 ± 0.74 |
| 23 | Right | 2.50 ± 1.84 | 1.35 ± 0.88 | 0.90 ± 0.69 |
| 24 | Left | 1.60 ± 1.12 | 0.95 ± 0.72 | 0.60 ± 0.56 |
| 25 | Right | 1.55 ± 1.14 | 1.00 ± 0.74 | 0.65 ± 0.71 |
| 26 | Right | 1.25 ± 0.97 | 1.15 ± 0.52 | 0.40 ± 0.45 |
| 27 | Right | 1.85 ± 1.47 | 1.35 ± 1.05 | 0.90 ± 0.84 |
| 28 | Right | 1.45 ± 1.06 | 1.05 ± 0.76 | 0.90 ± 0.65 |
| 29 | Left | 1.70 ± 1.11 | 1.00 ± 0.57 | 0.65 ± 0.55 |
| 30 | Left | 1.75 ± 1.31 | 1.05 ± 0.79 | 0.85 ± 0.70 |
| Group Average | 2.0467+/-0.4160 | 1.2367+/-0.2029 | 0.8290+/-0.2104 | |
Group average SVV deviation readings before and after CRM and following complete resolution of PC-BPPV (degree), with comparison to pre-CRM readings.
| Time Point | Mean ± SD | Median (25th-75th percentile) | Range | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before CRM | 2.05 ± 0.42 | 2.02(1.762–2.325) | 1.25–3.15 | |
| After CRM | 1.24 ± 0.2 | 1.2(1.05–1.4) | 0.9–1.6 | <.00001 |
| Following complete resolution of PC-BPPV | 0.83 ± 0.21 | 0.85(0.662–0.938) | 0.35–1.3 | <.00001 |
Paired t-test.
Fig. 2Bar chart showing distribution of prevalence of SVV deviation direction.