Macdonald Nora K, Kaski Diego, Saman Yougan, Al-Shaikh Sulaiman Amal, Anwer Amal, Bamiou Doris-Eva
Neuro-otology Department, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
UCL Ear Institute, London, UK.
Front Neurol. 2017 Apr 20;8:141. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00141. eCollection 2017.
To provide a systematic review of the clinical and radiological features of lesion-induced central positional nystagmus (CPN) and identify salient characteristics that differentiate central from peripheral positional nystagmus (PN).
Systematic literature search according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
A total of 82 patients from 28 studies met the participants intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study designs criteria for inclusion. An atypical direction of nystagmus for the stimulated canal was reported in 97.5% patients during Dix-Hallpike (D-H) and 54.5% upon supine roll testing. Five types of CPNs were identified during positional testing: positional horizontal nystagmus (pHN) (36.8%), positional downbeating nystagmus (pDBN) (29.2%), positional torsional nystagmus (pTN) (2.1%), positional upbeating nystagmus (pUBN) (2.1%), and a combination of the four profiles (29.9%). CPN was paroxysmal (<60 s) in 85% patients on straight head hanging (SHH), 63.9% on D-H, and 37.5% on supine roll, and had a latency <3 s upon positioning in 94.7% patients in which it was reported. Concurrent vertigo was reportedly present in 63.4% patients and 48.8% demonstrated other neurological signs. Radiologically, in 74.4%, there was mention of cerebellar involvement, isolated brainstem involvement in 8.5%, and 14.6% involved the fourth ventricle.
Currently, there is a lack of robust data on the clinical and radiological characteristics of CPN highlighting the need for better phenotyping of CPN to help differentiate this entity from peripheral causes of PN. With increased awareness of CPN, particularly in the acute setting, we may see a change in the estimated prevalence of CPN and improved clinical markers to promptly identify the frequently sinister underlying causes.
对病变性中枢性位置性眼球震颤(CPN)的临床和影像学特征进行系统综述,并确定区分中枢性与周围性位置性眼球震颤(PN)的显著特征。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目进行系统文献检索。
28项研究中的82例患者符合纳入的参与者、干预措施、对照、结局和研究设计标准。在Dix-Hallpike(D-H)试验期间,97.5%的患者报告了受刺激半规管的眼球震颤方向异常,仰卧翻身试验时为54.5%。在位置试验中确定了五种类型的CPN:位置性水平眼球震颤(pHN)(36.8%)、位置性下跳性眼球震颤(pDBN)(29.2%)、位置性扭转性眼球震颤(pTN)(2.1%)、位置性上跳性眼球震颤(pUBN)(2.1%)以及四种类型的组合(29.9%)。85%的患者在直头悬挂(SHH)时CPN为阵发性(<60秒),D-H试验时为63.9%,仰卧翻身试验时为37.5%,在报告的患者中,94.7%在定位后潜伏期<3秒。据报道,63.4%的患者同时存在眩晕,48.8%的患者有其他神经系统体征。影像学方面,74.4%提到有小脑受累,孤立性脑干受累占8.5%,14.6%累及第四脑室。
目前,关于CPN临床和影像学特征的可靠数据匮乏,这凸显了对CPN进行更好的表型分析以帮助将该实体与PN的外周病因相区分的必要性。随着对CPN认识的提高,特别是在急性情况下,我们可能会看到CPN估计患病率的变化以及用于及时识别常见潜在严重病因的临床标志物的改善。