Clinical characteristics of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in children with recurrent vertigo of childhood. (October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gao, Dekun; Sun, Xiayu; Shen, Jiali; Ma, Xiaobao; Wang, Lu; Chen, Xiangping; Yang, Jun; Chen, Jianyong
• Is Part Of: International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. Volume 161(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-10
• Subjects: Recurrent vertigo of childhood -- Benign paroxysmal vertigo of childhood -- cVEMP -- oVEMP -- Otolith organ -- Vestibular nerve conduction pathway; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; Oto-rhino-laryngologie -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie -- Périodiques; 618.9209751
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111257
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0165-5876

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To explore the possible pathogenesis of recurrent vertigo of childhood (RVC) and the clinical diagnosis value of vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs). Methods: The clinical data of 19 children (5.95 ± 0.38 years) diagnosed with RVC and 17 normal children (5.35 ± 0.31 years) enrolled in the control (NC) group from April 2017 to February 2021 was collected and analyzed. All subjects were tested for both cervical VEMP (cVEMP) and ocular VEMP (oVEMP). The elicit rate, thresholds, N1 latency, P1 latency, interval, amplitude, and amplitude asymmetry ratio (AAR) of VEMPs were compared and analyzed between the two groups. Results: (1) The elicit rates of cVEMP and oVEMP have no significant difference between the two groups ( P > 0.05). (2) The thresholds of cVEMP and oVEMP in the RVC group were higher than that in the NC group ( P < 0.05). (3) The N1 latency of cVEMP in the RVC group was longer than that in the NC group ( P < 0.05). The P1 latency of cVEMP and latencies of oVEMP have no significant difference between the two groups ( P > 0.05). (4) The interval of cVEMP in the RVC group was longer than that in the NC group ( P < 0.05), while the interval of oVEMP has no significant difference between the two groups ( P > 0.05). (5) The amplitude of cVEMP in the RVC group was higher than that in the NC group ( P < 0.05), while the amplitude of oVEMP was similar in the two groups ( P > 0.05). (6) The AAR values of oVEMP and cVEMP were similar in the two groups ( P > 0.05). Conclusions: The elicit rates of VEMPs in children with RVC did not differ from that of normal children, but the thresholds were all increased, suggesting reduced sensitivity of the otolith organ and vestibular nerve conduction pathways. The P1 latency of cVEMP was normal in children with RVC, but N1 latency and interval of cVEMP were increased, we finally reached a conclusion that there might be potential impairment in the inferior vestibular nerve and the subsequent nerve conduction pathway in RVC.