Evidence Hub

Post Cochlear Implantation Vertigo: Ictal Nystagmus and Audiovestibular Test Characteristics

Kwok BYC, Young AS, Kong JHK, Birman CS, Flanagan S, Greenberg SL, Gibson WP, Argaet EC et al.

Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2024

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate ictal nystagmus and audiovestibular characteristics in episodic spontaneous vertigo after cochlear implantation (CI).

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective and prospective case series.

PATIENTS: Twenty-one CI patients with episodic spontaneous vertigo after implantation were recruited.

INTERVENTIONS: Patient-initiated home video-oculography recordings were performed during one or more attacks of vertigo, using miniature portable home video-glasses. To assess canal and otolith function, video head-impulse tests (vHITs) and vestibular-evoked myogenic potential tests were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Nystagmus slow-phase velocities (SPVs), the presence of horizontal direction-changing nystagmus, and post-CI audiovestibular tests.

RESULTS: Main final diagnoses were post-CI secondary endolymphatic hydrops (48%) and exacerbation of existing Ménière's disease (29%). Symptomatic patients demonstrated high-velocity horizontal ictal-nystagmus (SPV, 44.2°/s and 68.2°/s in post-CI secondary endolymphatic hydrop and Ménière's disease). Direction-changing nystagmus was observed in 80 and 75%. Two were diagnosed with presumed autoimmune inner ear disease (SPV, 6.6°/s and 172.9°/s). One patient was diagnosed with probable vestibular migraine (15.1°/s).VHIT gains were 0.80 ± 0.20 (lateral), 0.70 ± 0.17 (anterior), and 0.62 ± 0.27 (posterior) in the implanted ear, with abnormal values in 33, 35, and 35% of each canal. Bone-conducted cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free