Liu Xunyuan, Xu Xianrong
Vertigo Clinic Research Center of Aerospace, Air Force Medical Center, PLA, Beijing, China.
J Vestib Res. 2025 Mar;35(2):73-81. doi: 10.1177/09574271241300326. Epub 2024 Nov 13.
BackgroundVestibular neuritis (VN) has faced various diagnostic challenges despite years of clinical use. This study analyzes 65 cases based on diagnostic criteria for acute unilateral vestibulopathy/vestibular neuritis (AUVP/VN) 2022.MethodThrough medical history, physical examinations, and vestibular function tests, including the caloric test, video-head impulse test (v-HIT), and vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs), we thoroughly tested vestibular receptor dysfunction of AUVP/VN cases. Patients were divided into two groups: total vestibular nerve branch dysfunction (tVND) and partial vestibular nerve branch dysfunction (pVND). The tVND group was defined as involving all receptors innervated by the superior and/or inferior vestibular nerve. The pVND group was defined as involving any other combination pattern of vestibular receptors (at least one). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed. All patients were followed up for 6 months. Changes in DHI scale scores and residual or new symptoms were investigated.ResultsA total of 65 AUVP/VN patients with vestibular receptor dysfunction were included. There were 51 cases in the pVND group and 14 in the tVND group. Compared to the pVND group, the tVND group showed longer vertigo duration ( < 0.05), higher rates of postural symptoms ( < 0.01), higher rates of abnormal caloric tests ( < 0.05), higher canal paresis values ( < 0.001), and higher rates of deficient vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) gain in v-HIT ( < 0.001). After a 6-month follow-up, the pVND group showed lower DHI scores ( < 0.001) and higher cure rate ( < 0.001).ConclusionsIn general, patients in the tVND group showed a more severe disease and worse prognosis than those in the pVND group. The substitution of the term AUVP for VN is appropriate and aligns with the clinical characteristics of the cases. However, the diagnosis of AUVP should be further developed to include otolith organ dysfunction.
背景
尽管前庭神经炎(VN)已临床应用多年,但仍面临各种诊断挑战。本研究基于2022年急性单侧前庭病/前庭神经炎(AUVP/VN)的诊断标准分析了65例病例。
方法
通过病史、体格检查和前庭功能测试,包括冷热试验、视频头脉冲试验(v-HIT)和前庭诱发肌源性电位(VEMPs),我们对AUVP/VN病例的前庭受体功能障碍进行了全面测试。患者分为两组:完全前庭神经分支功能障碍(tVND)和部分前庭神经分支功能障碍(pVND)。tVND组定义为涉及由上前庭神经和/或下前庭神经支配的所有受体。pVND组定义为涉及前庭受体的任何其他组合模式(至少一个)。分析了社会人口统计学和临床特征。所有患者均随访6个月。研究了DHI量表评分的变化以及残留或新出现的症状。
结果
共纳入65例有前庭受体功能障碍的AUVP/VN患者。pVND组51例,tVND组14例。与pVND组相比,tVND组眩晕持续时间更长(<0.05),姿势症状发生率更高(<0.01),冷热试验异常率更高(<0.05),半规管轻瘫值更高(<0.001),v-HIT中前庭眼反射(VOR)增益不足率更高(<0.001)。随访6个月后,pVND组DHI评分更低(<0.001),治愈率更高(<0.001)。
结论
总体而言,tVND组患者的病情比pVND组更严重,预后更差。用AUVP替代VN这一术语是合适的,且与病例的临床特征相符。然而,AUVP的诊断应进一步完善,以纳入耳石器官功能障碍。