Sensitivity of caloric test and video head impulse as screening test for chronic vestibular complaints

Authors

  • Raquel Mezzalira Clínica de Otorrinolaringologia do Instituto Penido Burnier
  • Roseli Saraiva Moreira Bittar Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP; Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia
  • Marcia Maria do Carmo Bilécki-Stipsky Clínica de Otorrinolaringologia do Instituto Penido Burnier
  • Cibele Brugnera Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP; Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia
  • Signe Schuster Grasel Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP; Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(08)03

Keywords:

Caloric Test, Video Head Impulse Test, Vestibular Ocular Reflex, Vertigo

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the results of the caloric test with those of the video head impulse test obtained during the same session and evaluated whether the former can be used to screen for non-acute vestibular dysfunction. METHODS: A total of 157 participants complaining of dizziness with vestibular characteristics of varying durations and clinical courses completed the caloric test and video head impulse test. RESULTS: Significantly more caloric test results than video head impulse test results were abnormal. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the caloric test and video head impulse test are distinct but complement each other. Within our sample, the caloric test was more sensitive for vestibular dysfunction. Therefore, the video head impulse test is not a suitable screening tool of the vestibular system in patients with chronic complaints.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2017-08-01

Issue

Vol. 72 No. 8 (2017)

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

Mezzalira, R., Bittar, R. S. M., do Carmo Bilécki-Stipsky, M. M., Brugnera, C., & Grasel, S. S. (2017). Sensitivity of caloric test and video head impulse as screening test for chronic vestibular complaints. Clinics, 72(8), 469-473. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(08)03