JNNP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER


[Advanced]
Published Online First: 31 August 2007. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.126730
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2008;79:559-568
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jnnp.2007.126730v1
79/5/559    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rosengren, S M
Right arrow Articles by Colebatch, J G
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rosengren, S M
Right arrow Articles by Colebatch, J G

RESEARCH PAPERS

Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in superior canal dehiscence

S M Rosengren1, S T Aw2, G M Halmagyi2, N P McAngus Todd3, J G Colebatch1

1 UNSW Clinical School and Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia
2 Neurology Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
3 Faculty of Life Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Correspondence to:
S M Rosengren, Institute of Neurological Sciences, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia; s.rosengren{at}unsw.edu.au

Objective: Patients with superior canal dehiscence (SCD) have large sound-evoked vestibular reflexes with pathologically low threshold. We wished to determine whether a recently discovered measure of the vestibulo-ocular reflex—the ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential (OVEMP)—produced similar high-amplitude, low-threshold responses in SCD, and could differentiate patients with SCD from normal control patients.

Methods: Nine patients with CT-confirmed SCD and 10 normal controls were stimulated with 500 Hz, 2 ms tone bursts and 0.1 ms clicks at intensities up to 142 dB peak SPL. Conventional VEMPs were recorded from the ipsilateral sternocleidomastoid muscle to determine threshold, and OVEMPs were recorded from electrode pairs placed superior and inferior to the eyes. Three-dimensional eye movements were measured with scleral dual-search coils.

Results: In patients with SCD, OVEMP amplitudes were significantly larger than normal (p<0.001) and thresholds were pathologically low. The n10 OVEMP in the contralateral inferior electrode became particularly large with increasing stimulus intensity (up to 25 µV) and with up-gaze (up to 40 µV). Sound-evoked (slow-phase) eye movements were present in all patients with SCD (vertical: upward; torsional: upper pole away from the affected side; and horizontal: towards or away from the affected side), but began only as the OVEMP response became maximal, which is consistent with the surface potentials being produced by activation of the extraocular muscles that generated the eye movements.

Conclusions: OVEMP amplitude and threshold (particularly the contralateral inferior n10 response) differentiated patients with SCD from normal controls. Our findings suggest that both the OVEMPs and induced eye movements in SCD are a result of intense saccular activation in addition to superior canal stimulation.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.