Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T23:15:19.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of the sternocleidomastoid muscle contraction asymmetry and filter: cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2023

G Hançer Arslan Open the ORCID record for G Hançer Arslan [Opens in a new window] ,
M Arslan Open the ORCID record for M Arslan [Opens in a new window] ,
O T Aran ,
E H Özberk  and
M Baydan Aran
G Hançer Arslan*
Affiliation:
Department of Audiometry, Vocational School of Health Services, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
M Arslan
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
O T Aran
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
E H Özberk
Affiliation:
National Foundation for Educational Research, London, UK
M Baydan Aran
Affiliation:
Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: Gülçin Hançer Arslan, Email: gulcinarslan@trakya.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to determine the precautions that can be taken to increase the reliability of the vestibular evoked myogenic potentials test without being affected by the asymmetry of the sternocleidomastoid muscle and the issues that should be considered in the interpretation of vestibular evoked myogenic potential results if these precautions are not taken.

Method

Individuals with sternocleidomastoid muscle activity of less than 30 μV in cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential testing and an asymmetry ratio of more than 0.35 were excluded. In our study, individuals were divided into different groups according to sternocleidomastoid muscle asymetry.

Results

A total of 53 individuals were included in the study. Intergroup comparisons were made to determine the effect of electromyogram scaling and filter use on amplitude asymmetry ratio according to sternocleidomastoid muscle asymmetry.

Conclusion

Keeping the sternocleidomastoid muscle asymmetry not exceeding 10 μV maximises the reliability of cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. As a result of our study, it can be concluded that in clinical applications the asymmetry should not exceed 20 μV.

Keywords

AsymmetryelectrophysiologyfilterratioVEMPvestibular system
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 138 , Issue 4 , April 2024 , pp. 410 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Gülçin Hançer Arslan takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Versino, M, Colnaghi, S, Callieco, R, Bergamaschi, R, Romani, A, Cosi, V. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in multiple sclerosis patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113:1464–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandhu, JS, Low, R, Rea, PA, Saunders, NC. Altered frequency dynamics of cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in patients with Ménière's disease. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:444–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murofushi, T. Clinical application of vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). Auris Nasus Larynx 2016;43:367–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colebatch, J, Halmagyi, G, Skuse, N. Myogenic potentials generated by a click-evoked vestibulocollic reflex. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1994;57:190–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, Y, Tecellioğlu, M, Kamışlı, Ö, Kamışlı, S, Özcan, C. Migrenli hastalarda servikal vestibüler uyarılmış miyojenik potansiyellerin değerlendirilmesi. Türk Nöroloji Dergisi 2013;19:134–8Google Scholar
Hızal, E, Erbek, S, Özlüoğlu, LN. Vestibüler uyarılmış miyojenik potansiyeller (VEMP). Bozok Tıp Derg 2014;1:26–37Google Scholar
Isaradisaikul, S, Navacharoen, N, Hanprasertpong, C, Kangsanarak, J. Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials: norms and protocols. Int J Otolaryngol 2012;2012Google ScholarPubMed
Park, HJ, Han, SH, Shim, DB, Shin, H, Lim, SG, Ahn, JY, et al. Changes of VEMP responses by the strength of scm muscles contraction and stimulation ıntensities. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;50:579–83Google Scholar
Lee, KJ, Kim, MS, Son, EJ, Lim, HJ, Bang, JH, Kang, JG. The usefulness of rectified VEMP. Clin Experiment Otorhinolaryngol 2008;1:143CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, SK, Il Cha, C, Jung, TS, Park, DC, Yeo, SG. Age-related differences in parameters of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Acta Otolaryngol 2008;128:66–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akin, FW, Murnane, OD, Panus, PC, Caruthers, SK, Wilkinson, AE, Profiitt, TM. The influence of voluntary tonic EMG level on the vestibular-evoked myogenic potential. J Rehab Res Develop 2004;41:473–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shahnaz, N, David, EA. Normal values for cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials using EMG scaling: effect of body position and electrode montage. Acta Otolaryngol 2021;141:440–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosengren, SM, Colebatch, JG, Young, AS, Govender, S, Welgampola, MS. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in practice: methods, pitfalls and clinical applications. Clin Neurophysiol Pract 2019;4:47–68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accounting for Muscle Asymmetries in cVEMP. In: https://www.interacoustics.com/academy/faq/bal/how-do-i-account-for-muscle-asymmetries-in-cvemp [2 February 2023]Google Scholar
Maes, L, Vinck, BM, De Vel, E, D'haenens, W, Bockstael, A, Keppler, H, et al. The vestibular evoked myogenic potential: a test–retest reliability study. Clin Neurophysiol 2009;120:594–600CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noij, KS, Herrmann, BS, Rauch, SD, Guinan, Jr JJ. Toward optimizing vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: normalization reduces the need for strong neck muscle contraction. Audiol Neurotol 2017;22:282–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Tilburg, MJ, Herrmann, BS, Guinan, Jr JJ, Rauch, SD. Normalization reduces intersubject variability in cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:e222–e7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCaslin, DL, Fowler, A, Jacobson, GP. Amplitude normalization reduces cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) amplitude asymmetries in normal subjects: proof of concept. J Am Acad Audiol 2014;25:268–77Google ScholarPubMed
Basta, D, Todt, I, Ernst, A. Normative data for P1/N1-latencies of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials induced by air-or bone-conducted tone bursts. Clin Neurophysiol 2005;116:2216–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welgampola, M, Colebatch, J. Vestibulocollic reflexes: normal values and the effect of age. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112:1971–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, Y-H. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: optimal stimulation and clinical application. J Biomed Sci 2006;13:745–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaradisaikul, S, Strong, DA, Moushey, JM, Gabbard, SA, Ackley, SR, Jenkins, HA. Reliability of vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in healthy subjects. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:542–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janky, KL, Shepard, N. Vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) testing: normative threshold response curves and effects of age. J Am Acad Audiol 2009;20:514–22Google ScholarPubMed
Mau, C, Kamal, N, Badeti, S, Reddy, R, Ying, Y-LM, Jyung, RW et al. Superior semicircular canal dehiscence: diagnosis and management. J Clin Neurosci 2018;48:58–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikulec, AA, McKenna, MJ, Ramsey, MJ, Rosowski, JJ, Herrmann, BS, Rauch, SD et al. Superior semicircular canal dehiscence presenting as conductive hearing loss without vertigo. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:121–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosengren, S, Welgampola, M, Colebatch, J. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: past, present and future. Clin Neurophysiol 2010;121:636–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed