Abstract
Objective: To explore the efficacy of short-term personalized vestibular rehabilitation supervised by special personnel (ST-PVR) versus fixed vestibular rehabilitation (FVR) on decompensated recurrent peripheral vertigo. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was carried out. Patients diagnosed with decompensated recurrent vertigo in the clinic of Eye & ENT Hospital, Fudan University from January to December 2018 were randomly allocated into FVR and ST-PVR groups via computer-generated randomization. The FVR group received fixed scheme involving gaze stabilization exercises, habituation exercises, balance and gait training, while the ST-PVR group received individualized training programs based on symptoms and vestibular function examination results, with adjustments made according to the progress of recovery. Patient symptoms and vestibular function improvement were assessed using the dizziness handicap inventory (DHI), activities-specific balance confidence (ABC), self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), caloric test, and sensory organization test (SOT) at 2, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment. Results: A total of 44 patients were included, including 16 males and 28 females, with an average age of (50.6±13.5) years. There were 21 cases in the FVR group and 23 cases in the ST-PVR group. In the ST-PVR group, DHI score (49.5±26.8 vs 61.3±21.4, P=0.046) and SAS score (39.1±7.8 vs 44.3±6.6, P=0.021) significantly improved after 2 weeks of treatment, while significant improvement occurred only after 8 weeks of treatment in the FVR group (DHI score: 28.1±15.9 vs 53.1±18.5, P=0.001; SAS score: 35.3±6.7 vs 43.1±8.4, P=0.010). There was no significant change of ABC score in the FVR group after 8 weeks of treatment (86.5±12.9 vs 83.4±18.1, P=0.373), while a significant improvement was observed in the ST-PVR group after 4 weeks of treatment (83.6±15.2 vs 78.4±15.1, P=0.015). The caloric test results showed that after 8 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with unilateral weakness<25% increased in both groups [FVR group: 57.1% (12/21) vs 9.5% (2/21), P=0.001; ST-PVR group: 52.2% (12/23) vs 17.4% (4/23), P=0.014]. In the ST-PVR group, the proportion of patients with dominant preference≤25% significantly increased [91.3% (21/23) vs 60.9% (14/23), P=0.016], while there was no significant change in the FVR group [61.9 (13/21) vs 57.1% (12/21), P=0.500]. The proportion of patients with SOT score≥70 in the ST-PVR group increased significantly after 2 weeks of treatment [69.6% (16/23) vs 30.4% (7/23), P=0.009], while the FVR group showed a significant increase only after 8 weeks of treatment [81.0% (17/21) vs 42.9% (9/21), P=0.012]. Conclusion: Both FVR and ST-PVR effectively promote vestibular compensation by improving objective vestibular functions and relieving subjective symptoms and anxiety of the patients with decompensation recurrent vertigo, while ST-PVR might shorten the recovery time and increase balance confidence.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call