McCaslin, Devin L.

Objectives: Dizziness, vertigo, and unsteadiness are common complaints of patients who present to primary care providers. These patients often are referred to otology for assessment and management. Unfortunately, there are a small number of specialists to manage these patients. However, there are several dizziness disorders that can be successfully managed by primary care providers if the disorder is properly identified. To assist in the identification of several of the most common dizziness disorders, we developed the dizziness symptom profile (DSP). The DSP is a self-report questionnaire designed to generate one or more differential diagnoses that can be combined with the patient’s case history and physical examination. Design: This report describes three investigations. Investigations 1 and 2 (i.e., exploratory and confirmatory investigations, N = 514) describe the development of the DSP. Investigation 3 (N = 195) is a validation study that describes the level of agreement between the DSP completed by the patient, and, the differential diagnosis of the otologist. Results: The final version of the DSP consists of 31 items. Preliminary findings suggest that the DSP is in agreement with the differential diagnoses of ear specialists for Meniere’s disease (100% agreement), vestibular migraine (95% agreement), and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (82% agreement). Conclusions: Early results suggest that DSP may be useful in the creation of differential diagnoses for dizzy patients that can be evaluated and managed locally. This has the potential to reduce the burden on primary care providers and reduce delays in the diagnosis of common dizziness and vertigo disorders.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the variability and test–retest reliability of a commercially available subjective visual vertical (SVV) system known as Virtual SVV (Interacoustics). In addition, the study aimed to compare the reliability of the Virtual system with a previously established bucket test of SVV.Study DesignFifteen participants with normal hearing, normal middle ear function, and normal utricular function were included in the study. Each participant underwent static SVV testing using both the Virtual system and the bucket test. Subjects completed 2 testing sessions to determine test–retest reliability. For each test, data were collected with the head at 0°, tilted 45° to the right, and tilted 45° to the left.SettingThis study was conducted in a balance function laboratory embedded in a large, tertiary care otology clinic.ResultsThe mean SVV values obtained with the Virtual system were within 1°–2° from 0 with the head positioned at 0°, which is in agreement with many other studies of SVV with the head at 0° (Akin & Murnane, 2009; Halmagyi & Curthoys, 1999; Zwergal, Rettinger, Frenzel, Dieterich, & Strupp, 2009). Using the intraclass correlation coefficient, test–retest reliability of the Virtual system was excellent in the 45° left position and fair to good in the 45° right and 0° position. Test–retest reliability of the bucket test was poor in all head positions.ConclusionsThe Virtual system is a more reliable measure of static SVV than the bucket test. Therefore, the Virtual system could be utilized as a screening device for utricular dysfunction in busy clinical settings.

Objectives: Significant advancements have been made toward the clinical assessment of utricular function through ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMP) and unilateral centrifugation (UCF) testing. To date, no study has examined intrasubject relationships between these measures. The study hypothesis was that intrasubject responses from oVEMP and UCF testing would be correlated inasmuch as both tests have been reported to assess utricular function. Design: UCF rotations and oVEMP testing were performed on healthy volunteers, aged 18 to 62 years. A within-subject study design compared and correlated UCF outcome measures of ocular counterroll, subjective visual vertical, and ocular counterroll–gravitational inertial acceleration slope against peak to peak oVEMP N1–P1 amplitude. Results: Correlational analyses failed to reveal any significant relationships between oVEMP amplitude and UCF responses suggesting that these tests may be inciting different response properties within the utricular system. Conclusions: Various anatomical and physiological differences within the utricle, in addition to the fundamental differences in stimulus properties between the oVEMP and UCF tests, could explain the lack of significant correlations between these measures and suggest that oVEMP and UCF testing may be complimentary in their evaluation of the utricular system. These data reinforce the complexities of the utricular system and provide further insight into the difficulties encountered in its clinical assessment.

ObjectiveTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) in the diagnosis of superior semicircular canal dehiscence (SCD) and to describe the VEMP response characteristics that are most sensitive to SCD and compare the findings to previous reports.Study DesignCase series with chart review.SettingTwo tertiary neurotologic referral centers.Subjects and MethodsCervical and ocular VEMP peak‐to‐peak amplitudes and thresholds from 39 adult patients older than 18 years with surgically confirmed SCD were compared with 84 age‐matched controls.ResultsUsing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, cervical VEMP (cVEMP) amplitudes, cVEMP thresholds, and ocular VEMP (oVEMP) amplitudes had areas under the curve of 0.731, 0.912, and 0.856, respectively, all of which were statistically significant (P <. 0001). For cVEMP thresholds, at the clinical equivalent ≤85‐dB normalized hearing level (nHL) threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 97.3% and 31.3%, respectively. At the ≤70‐dB nHL threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 73.0% and 94.0%, respectively. For oVEMP amplitudes >12.0 µV, the sensitivity and specificity were 78.6% and 81.7%, respectively.ConclusionData from this multicenter study suggest that both cVEMP thresholds and oVEMP amplitudes remain good diagnostic tests for identifying SCD, with each test dependent on a number of factors. The sensitivity and specificity of these individual tests may vary slightly between centers depending on testing parameters used.