Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T22:37:17.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Role of cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential response in identifying vestibular dysfunction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2013

S Isaradisaikul*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
N Navacharoen
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
C Hanprasertpong
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
J Kangsanarak
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Suwicha Isaradisaikul, Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Mueang, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand Fax: +66 53 945564 E-mail: sisaradi@mail.med.cmu.ac.th
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To analyse cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential response parameters in normal volunteers and vertiginous patients.

Subjects and methods:

A prospective study of 50 normal subjects and 50 patients with vertigo was conducted at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand. Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential responses were measured using air-conducted, 500-Hz, tone-burst stimuli with subjects in a sitting position with their head turned toward the contralateral shoulder.

Results:

The mean ± standard deviation age and male:female ratio in the normal (44.0 ± 9.3 years; 12:38) and vertigo groups (44.7 ± 9.8 years; 17:33) were not significantly different. The prevalence of absent responses in the normal (14 per cent) and vertigo ears (46 per cent) differed significantly (p < 0.0001). Other cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential parameters (i.e. response threshold, P1 and N1 latency, P1–N1 interlatency and interamplitude, inter-ear difference in P1 threshold, and asymmetry ratio) showed no inter-group differences.

Conclusion:

The absence of a cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential response is useful in the identification of vestibular dysfunction. However, patients should undergo a comprehensive battery of other vestibular tests to supplement their cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential response findings.

Information

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 
Figure 0

Table I Cervical vemp responses: normal vs vertigo group

Figure 1

Table II Cervical vemp parameters*: normal vs affected vertigo group ears

Figure 2

Table III Cervical vemp parameter interaural differences*: normal vs vertigo group

Figure 3

Table IV Prevalence of cervical VEMP response* in normal subjects: published findings

Figure 4

Table V Prevalence of absent cervical VEMP response* in patients with various vestibular disorders: published findings