Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Sayed SZ, Abdul Wahat NH, Raymond AA, Hussein N, Wan Asyraf WZ, Omar M
    Med J Malaysia, 2021 Nov;76(6):898-905.
    PMID: 34806680
    While specific bedside examinations are known to be sensitive in identifying stroke among acute vestibular syndrome patients, complementary quantitative vestibular function testing can be helpful to quantify vestibular loss due to stroke. In contrast to peripheral vestibular dysfunction, diagnosis of central vestibular dysfunction can be challenging for unskilful clinicians. This article presents a comprehensive overview of quantitative vestibular function test findings such as the video head impulse test (vHIT), cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs), ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs), videonystagmography (VNG) and caloric test among stroke patients. Vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) gain is usually found normal among posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) stroke patients but varies among anterior inferior cerebellar artery (AICA) stroke patients. Abnormal contralesional posterior semicircular canal VOR gain can be observed due to lesions in the medial longitudinal fasciculus (MLF). AICA and PICA stroke can impair cVEMPs, oVEMPs, and VNG (i.e., smooth pursuit and saccade functions). Strokes, particularly those involving the vestibular nucleus, including both upper, lower brainstem and cerebellum, can result in various abnormalities of smooth pursuit, saccade or calorics testing. The combined evaluations of VNG, vHIT, and VEMPs can be accurately used to complement and quantify bedside vestibular evaluation in diagnosing central vestibular dysfunction. In addition, as most studies were conducted amongst acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) patients, future studies that investigate the prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in recovering stroke patients are required.
  2. Sayed SZ, Abdul Wahat NH, Raymond AA, Hussein N, Omar M
    J Int Adv Otol, 2023 Jan;19(1):33-40.
    PMID: 36718034 DOI: 10.5152/iao.2023.21387
    BACKGROUND: This study investigates the test-retest reliability, aging effects, and differences in horizontal semicircular canals gain values between the head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm.

    METHODS: Sixty healthy adult subjects aged 22-76-year-old (mean ± standard deviation=47.27 ± 18.29) participated in the head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm using the video head impulse test. The Head impulse paradigm was used to assess all 6 semicircular canals, while suppression head impulse paradigm measured only the horizontal canals. Twenty subjects aged 22-40-year-old (25.25 ± 4.9) underwent a second session for the test-retest reliability.

    RESULTS: There were good test-retest reliability for both measures (right horizontal head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.80; left horizontal head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.77; right anterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.86; left anterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.78; right posterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.78; left posterior head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.75; right horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.76; left horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.79). The test-retest reliability for suppression head impulse paradigmanti-compensatory saccade latency and amplitude were moderate (right latency, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.61; left latency, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.69; right amplitude, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.69; left amplitude, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.58). There were no significant effects of age on head impulse paradigm and suppression head impulse paradigm vestibulo-ocular reflex gain values and suppression head impulse paradigmsaccade latency. However, the saccade amplitude became smaller with increasing age, P < .001. The horizontal suppression head impulse paradigm vestibuloocular reflex gain values were significantly lower than the head impulse paradigm for both sides (right, P = .004; left, P = .004).

    CONCLUSION: There was good test-retest reliability for both measures, and the gain values stabilized with age. However, suppression head impulse paradigm anti-compensatory saccade latency and amplitude had lower test-retest reliability than the gain. The suppression head impulse paradigm vestibulo-ocular reflex gain was lower than the head impulse paradigm and its anti-compensatory saccade amplitude reduced with increasing age.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links