Sluydts Morgana, Curthoys Ian, Vanspauwen Robby, Papsin Blake Croll, Cushing Sharon Lynn, Ramos Angel, Ramos de Miguel Angel, Borkoski Barreiro Silvia, Barbara Maurizio, Manrique Manuel, Zarowski Andrzej
European Institute for Otorhinolaryngology, GZA Hospitals Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium,
Vestibular Research Laboratory, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Audiol Neurootol. 2020;25(1-2):6-24. doi: 10.1159/000502407. Epub 2019 Sep 18.
In patients with bilateral vestibulopathy, the regular treatment options, such as medication, surgery, and/or vestibular rehabilitation, do not always suffice. Therefore, the focus in this field of vestibular research shifted to electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) and the development of a system capable of artificially restoring the vestibular function. Key Message: Currently, three approaches are being investigated: vestibular co-stimulation with a cochlear implant (CI), EVS with a vestibular implant (VI), and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). All three applications show promising results but due to conceptual differences and the experimental state, a consensus on which application is the most ideal for which type of patient is still missing.
Vestibular co-stimulation with a CI is based on "spread of excitation," which is a phenomenon that occurs when the currents from the CI spread to the surrounding structures and stimulate them. It has been shown that CI activation can indeed result in stimulation of the vestibular structures. Therefore, the question was raised whether vestibular co-stimulation can be functionally used in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. A more direct vestibular stimulation method can be accomplished by implantation and activation of a VI. The concept of the VI is based on the technology and principles of the CI. Different VI prototypes are currently being evaluated regarding feasibility and functionality. So far, all of them were capable of activating different types of vestibular reflexes. A third stimulation method is GVS, which requires the use of surface electrodes instead of an implanted electrode array. However, as the currents are sent through the skull from one mastoid to the other, GVS is rather unspecific. It should be mentioned though, that the reported spread of excitation in both CI and VI use also seems to induce a more unspecific stimulation. Although all three applications of EVS were shown to be effective, it has yet to be defined which option is more desirable based on applicability and efficiency. It is possible and even likely that there is a place for all three approaches, given the diversity of the patient population who serves to gain from such technologies.
在双侧前庭病患者中,常规治疗方法,如药物治疗、手术和/或前庭康复,并不总是足够有效。因此,前庭研究领域的重点转向了电前庭刺激(EVS)以及能够人工恢复前庭功能的系统的开发。关键信息:目前,正在研究三种方法:使用人工耳蜗(CI)进行前庭联合刺激、使用前庭植入物(VI)进行EVS以及直流电前庭刺激(GVS)。所有这三种应用都显示出了有前景的结果,但由于概念上的差异和实验状态,对于哪种应用最适合哪种类型的患者仍未达成共识。
使用CI进行前庭联合刺激基于“兴奋扩散”,这是一种当CI的电流扩散到周围结构并刺激它们时发生的现象。已经表明,CI激活确实可以导致前庭结构的刺激。因此,人们提出了前庭联合刺激是否可以在功能上用于双侧前庭病患者的问题。一种更直接的前庭刺激方法可以通过植入和激活VI来实现。VI的概念基于CI的技术和原理。目前正在对不同的VI原型进行可行性和功能性评估。到目前为止,所有这些原型都能够激活不同类型的前庭反射。第三种刺激方法是GVS,它需要使用表面电极而不是植入式电极阵列。然而,由于电流是从一个乳突穿过颅骨发送到另一个乳突,GVS相当不具有特异性。不过应该提到的是,在CI和VI的使用中报道的兴奋扩散似乎也会引起更不具有特异性的刺激。尽管EVS的所有这三种应用都已被证明是有效的,但基于适用性和效率,哪种选择更可取还有待确定。鉴于受益于此类技术的患者群体的多样性,所有这三种方法都有可能甚至很可能有其用武之地。