Benign peroxismal positional
vertigo: our experience in 40 cases
Subramanya BT1, Lohith S.2,
Sphoorthi B3, Chandralekha T.V.R.4
1Dr. Subramanya BT, 2Dr. Lohith S.,
3Dr. Sphoorthi B., 4Dr. Chandralekha TVR, all authors are
affiliated with Department of ENT, Subbaiah Institute of Medical Sciences,
Shimoga, Karnataka, India.
Corresponding Author: Dr. Lohith S., Department of ENT, Subbaiah Institute
of Medical Sciences, Shimoga, India. E-mail: dr.shivappalohith@gmail.com
Abstract
Introduction: BPPV is the most common cause
of vertigo provoked by certain head position changes. Despite
being the most common cause of peripheral vertigo, BPPV is still often misdiagnosed
hence it is important to understand BPPV not only
because it may avert expensive and often unnecessary investigations, but also
because treatment by particle reposition maneuvers is rapid, easy and effective
in more than 90% of cases. Objectives:
1) To analyze the etiological, clinical and prognostic
differences between patients affected by BPPV. 2) To
evaluate the efficacy of different PRM in the treatment of BPPV and to compare
the results of present study with similar studies done elsewhere. Methods: The present descriptive study was conducted
at Department of ENT, Subbaiah institute of medical sciences, Shimoga from
August 2015 to August 2018 in 40 patients
with a clinical diagnosis of BPPV. All these patients were treated by different
PRM specific for the canal involved and the results were analyzed. Results: Right
labyrinth was involved in 23 cases (57.5%) and left in 17 (42.5%) cases. PC was
involved in 34 (85%) cases and Eply’s maneuver was successful in all 34 (100%)
patients. HC was involved in 6 (15%) cases which were treated with Barbecue and
Gufoni maneuver with resolution in 5 (83.33%) patients. Conclusion: Therapeutic
maneuvers are effective in treatment of BPPV that have shown high success rate
hence should be tried in all patients with BPPV unless contraindicated to
reduce unnecessary
diagnostic tests and costs.
Keywords: BPPV, Dix Halpike’s test, Supine roll test, Epley’s maneuver, Barbecue
maneuver, Gufoni’s maneuver
Author Corrected: 10th December 2018 Accepted for Publication: 15th December 2018
Introduction
Benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo (BPPV) is the most common disorder of the peripheral
vestibular systemfirst described
by Barany in 1921 [1]. The overall prevalence of BPPV is 10.7 to 140
per 100,000 populations [2]. It is a disorder of inner
ear where otoliths from the utricular macula detach and move within the lumen
of one of the semicircular canals (canalithiasis) and cause endolymph
movement or adhere
to the cupulae (cupulolithiasis) that stimulates the ampulla
of the affected canal, thereby causing repeated episodes of vertigo. It
is precipitated by certain head position changes as may occur with looking up,
turning over in bed or straightening up after bending over.It commonly affects older
individuals between the fifth and seventh decades of life and has slightly
higher incidence in females compared to males. It has been observed that BPPV predominantly affects the
right labyrinth [3]. In most cases the cause of BPPV idiopathic which accounts for about
50%–70% of cases. The most common cause of “secondary” BPPV is
head trauma, representing 7%–17% of all BPPV cases which can involve both the
ears. Vestibular neuronitis, Meniere’s disease, migraine and inner ear surgery
have also been shown to be strongly associated with BPPV [4].
BPPV
may affect the posterior (PC-BPPV), horizontal (HC-BPPV), or anterior
semi-circular canal (AC-BPPV) and in some cases it may even involve more than
one canal at a time. The most commonly affected canal is the posterior canal due
to its gravity-dependent position, accounting for 85%-95% of cases of BPPV, and the
lateral/horizontal canals are affected in approximately 5%-15% of cases. The
anterior semicircular canals are rarely affected, accounting for 1%-3% of cases
[5]. The most effective treatment for BPPV is Particle
reposition maneuver (PRM). Epley’s and Semontz maneuver are described for PC-BPPV,
Barbecue maneuver (Lempert’s maneuver) and Gufoni’s
maneuver for HC-BPPV and Reverse Epley’s for AC-BPPV. Recent
studies have shown that the majority of patients are adequately treated with 1
or 2 Particle reposition maneuver [3].
Despite
being the most common cause of peripheral vertigo, BPPV is still often under
diagnosed or misdiagnosed [5]. It is important to
understand BPPV not only because it may avert expensive and often unnecessary
investigations, but also because treatment is rapid, easy and effective in more
than 90% of cases [6].
Objectives
1. To analyze the etiological, clinical and prognostic
differences between patients affected by posterior, horizontal and superior
canal BPPV.
2. To
evaluate the efficacy of different Particle reposition maneuvers in the
treatment of BPPV and to compare the results of present study with similar
studies done elsewhere.
Materials
and Methods
Place and type of study: The
present descriptive study was conducted at Department of ENT, Subbaiah
institute of medical sciences, Shimoga, in 40 patients with a clinical diagnosis of BPPV from
August 2015 to August 2018.
Type of study:
Descriptive study
Inclusion criteria: Patients aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of BPPV by history and one
of the diagnostic positive positional tests for either of the semi circular
canals.
Exclusion
criteria: Patients having cervical spondylosis or any
other cervical spine disorders in whom the reposition maneuvers could not be
done and patients who failed to follow up.
In
all these patients detailed history was taken and physical examination was
carried out including ENT examination, vestibular examination including H.I.N.T.S
(Head
Impulse, Nystagmus, Test of Skew) and CNS examination including
tests for cerebellar function.
Dix-
Halpike’s test was done, which is considered to be the gold standard test for
posterior semicircular canal BPPV. Patient was seatedin uprightposition with
the examiner standing at the head end of the patient.The patient’s head was
rotated 45° to theright to align the posterior semicircular canal withthe mid-sagittal
plane of the body. The patient wasinstructed to keep the eyes open.The patient was
moved quickly from the seated to thesupine right-ear-down position and the neck
was extended, approximately 20° below the horizontal plane so that the head
hanging off the edge of the table with the support of examiner. The patient’s
eyes were examined for the latency, duration, and direction of the
nystagmus.The patient was asked about thepresence of subjective vertigo. After
the resolution of the subjective vertigo andthe nystagmus, if present, the
patient was slowlyreturned to the upright position. During the return tothe
upright position, a reversal of the nystagmus was be observed. Test was
considered positive if an up beating, torsional (counter clock wise) nystagmus
was observed with subjective sensation of vertigo experienced by the patient. If
the initial result for the right side was negative, then Dix-Hallpike test wasrepeated
for the left side, with the left ear arrivingat the dependent position. If a
down beating nystagmus was observed during Dix-Hallpike test, it was considered
superior semi circular canal BPPV. If the patient has a history compatible with BPPV
andthe Dix-Hallpike test is negative, a supine roll test was
performed.
Initially patient was positioned the supine with 30
degree flexion to bring the HC in vertical alignment and the head in neutral
position followed by quickly rotating the head 90degrees to one side and the eyes
were observed for nystagmus. After the nystagmus subsidesor if no nystagmus is
elicited, the head is then returned to the straight faceup supine position.
After any additionalelicited nystagmus has subsided, the head is then quicklyturned
90 degrees to the opposite side, and the eyes are onceagain observed for
nystagmus. A horizontal geotropic nystagmus was considered positive with
intensity of nystagmus stronger on affected side. In cases where apogeotropic
nystagmus was observed the side with nystagmus of lesser intensity was
considered the affected ear. Summary of interpretation
of diagnostic tests and the particle reposition maneuvers used are shown in
table 1. Bow and lean tests were used to detect the
affected ear in difficult cases. Frenzel goggle was used to
aid the better appreciation of nystagmus during the test.
Table-1:
Summary of interpretation of diagnostic tests and the particle reposition
maneuvers performed in present study
|
Side |
PC canalithiasis or cupulolithiasis |
SC canalithiasis or cupulolithiasis |
HC canalithiasis |
HC cupulolithiasis |
Test |
|
Dix-Halpike’s test |
Dix-Halpike’s test |
Supine roll test |
Supine roll test |
Duration |
|
Paroxysmal |
Paroxysmal |
Paroxysmal |
Persistant |
Direction of
nystagmus |
Right |
Vertical
upward rotational counter-clock wise |
Vertical downward
rotational counter-clock wise |
Horizontal geotropic toward
right |
Horizontal apogeotropic toward
left |
Left |
Vertical
upward rotational clock wise |
Vertical downward rotational clock wise |
Horizontal geotropic toward
left |
Horizontal apogeotropic toward
right |
|
Nystagmus latency |
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Particle reposition maneuver
performed |
|
Eply’smaneuver |
Eply’s maneuver |
Barbecue maneuver/ Gufoni’s maneuver |
Barbecue maneuver/ Gufoni’s maneuver |
Epley’s
maneuver was done in patients with positive Dix-Halpike’s test. The
patient was initially placed in the upright position with the head turned 45°
toward the affected ear and then rapidly laid back to the supine head-hanging
20° position, which was maintained for 20-30 seconds. The head was then turned
90° toward the unaffected side and held for about 20 seconds. The head was
again turned a further 90° such that the patient’ head is nearly in the
facedown position. This is also held for 20-30 seconds. The patient is then
brought into the upright sitting position, completing the maneuver. The Dix-Halpike’s test was repeated after Epley’s maneuver if
negative, treatment ceases. If the repeat test was positive, the maneuver was
repeated after few minutes.
Barbecue maneuver was done in patients with positive
supine roll test. The patient wasasked to rotate 360 degrees in four stages, a
minute apart with the examiner seated at the head end of the examination couch.
At the head down position the patient was instructed to rest on theelbows with
the neck flexed, so that the horizontal canal isvertical. The supine roll test
was repeated and,if negative, treatment ceases. If the repeat test was found
positive even after repeating the maneuver 2 to 3 times, Gufoni’s maneuver was performed
after few minutes.
To
perform Gufoni’s
maneuver the patient was taken from the sitting
position to the straightside-lying position on the unaffected side (in
canalolithiasis cases) or affected side (incupulolithiasis cases) for about
30seconds. Then patient’s head was quickly turned toward the ground45°-60° and
held in position for 1-2 minutes.The patient then seated up again with the head
held towardsthe left shoulder until fully upright. All these patients received
Cinnarizine 25mg SOS for 1day and patients were instructed to sleep in the
lateral position with affected ear up overnight.
Results
A
total of 40 cases included in the study. The age of the patients ranged from 19
to 68 years, with mean age of 48 years with standard deviation of 13
and maximum number of patients was in the age group of 51 to 60 years as shown
in table 2. Among all patients 18 were male and 22 were female patients with
male female ratio of 1:1.2 (table 3)
Table-2:
Age distribution of study population
Age
group (years) |
No.
of patients |
% |
11-20 |
1 |
2.5 |
21-30 |
3 |
7.5 |
31-40 |
9 |
22.5 |
41-50 |
9 |
22.5 |
51-60 |
10 |
25 |
61-70 |
8 |
20 |
Table-3:
Gender distribution of study population
Gender |
No.
of patients |
% |
Male |
18 |
45 |
Female |
22 |
55 |
Right labyrinth was involved in 23 cases (57.5%)
and left in 17(42.5%) cases. Posterior canal was involved in 34 (85%) cases and
horizontal canal was involved in 6 (15%) cases (Table 4). Among PC- BPPV all patients
had canalolithiasis where as among HC- BPPV 4 patients had canalolithiasis and
2 patients had cupulolithiasis.
Table-4:
Semi circular canal involved in study population
Semi
circular canal involved |
No.
of patients |
% |
Posterior |
34 |
85 |
Horizontal |
6 |
15 |
Superior |
0 |
0 |
The duration of symptoms ranged from few
hours to 6 months and in majority of patients the presenting symptom was
spinning sensation on lying down to the affected side.
The aetiologically important factors in our study were
idiopathic in 34 (84%) patients, traumatic in 2 (5%), mastoidectomy in 1 (2.5%)
and ipsilateral Menier’s disease in 1 (2.5%) patient.
Eply’s
maneuver was successful in all our 34 patients of PC-BPPV with 100% success rate,
among them 33 (97%) patients had immediate relief of symptoms at first attempt and
only 1 patient needed a repeat maneuver.Among 4 patients of canalolithiasis
type HC- BPPV, 3 patients had successful treatment with Barbecue maneuver and 1
patient did not respond to both Barbecue as well as Gufoni’s maneuver and was
treated with forced lateral positionwith affected ear up for 12hrs in a day for
3 days and pharmacotherapy. Among 2 patients of cupulolithiasis type HC- BPPV
one had successful treatment with Barbecue maneuver and other improved with Gufoni
maneuver after 3 unsuccessful Barbecue maneuver.
Discussion
BPPV
is considered to be the most common cause of vertigo with overall favorable
prognosis. This favorable prognosis is based in part on the fact that BPPV can
recover spontaneously. However, undiagnosed and untreated BPPV affects the
quality of life especially in elderly individuals increasing the risk for
frequent falls and impairment in the performance of daily activities. A large
number of patients with BPPV will undergo unnecessary diagnostic testing such
as Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan, ECG, echocardiography
and carotid doppler tests as well as pharmacological treatments prior to
referral to a specialist [5].
Therefore,
significant improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with BPPV
may lead to significant health care quality improvements as well as medical and
societal cost savings.
BPPV is known to affect all age groups, though it appears
to be more common in the elderlyin 5th to 7th decade of
life and rarely seen in children. In our study, the mean age of the
participants was 48 yearswith standard deviation of 13 with maximum number of
patients in the age group of 51 to 60 years correlating with that in literature
[1,5,7]. In present study the sex distribution indicates a predilection for
women which is similar to other studies [1,7].
In majority of cases the cause of BPPV is unknown and the
most common identified etiological factors are previous trauma, ipsilateral
Meniere’s disease, ipsilateralvestibular neuritis and severe systemic disease
[8,9,10, 4]. In our study the cause was unknown in most of patients followed by
trauma, mastoidectomy and ipsilateral Menier’s disease in that order.
According to our study right ear is predominantly
affected which is consistent with studies conducted by Brevern MV et al [3]
Marciano E et al [1] and Soto-Varela A et al [8]. However Gaur S et al [1] had
left ear predilection in their study.
The
most commonly affected canal in BPPV is the posterior canal due to its
gravity-dependent position. In
study by Honrubia V et al. posterior semicircular canal was affected in the 93%
of cases [12]. In a study conducted by Soto-Varela A et at on 614 patients of
BPPV posterior semicircularcanal was affected in 543 cases (88.4%), the
horizontal in 39 (6.4%) and the superior canal in 32 (5.2%) [13]. In our study 34
(85%) patients had posterior and 6 (15%) patients had horizontal canal
involvement.
Treatment of PC-BPPV by
particle reposition maneuver was first described by
Epley in 1992. In
the study conducted by Epley on 30 patients with BPPV, there was 90% cure rate
seen after the maneuver.
The results of PRM in our study is better in PC- BPPV
than in the other two canals which is similar to those reported in the
literature [16, 17]. The efficacy of
the PRM for posterior canal BPPV in various studies is shown in table 5.There
are chances of recurrence of BPPV after complete resolution and hence it is
recommended that the patient should be told about a likelihood of recurrences
and the patient should be reassessed 1 month after the treatment [8,18].
Table-5:
Efficacy of the PRM for posterior canal BPPV in various studies
Reference |
No. of patients |
Success rate (%) |
No. of treatment sessions |
Epley [14] |
30 |
100 |
Repeated using mastoid vibrator |
Li [19] |
10 |
100 |
Repeated |
Parnes LS et al [4] |
34 |
88 |
Multiple |
Blackley [20] |
16 |
94 |
Single |
Wolf et al [21] |
102 |
93 |
Single |
Herdman et al [22] |
30 |
90 |
Single |
Present study |
40 |
100 |
Single |
Conclusion
BPPV
affects the quality of life mainly in older individuals the fifth decade of
life and has slightly higher incidence in females and morecommonly affects the right labyrinth. PC-BPPV is the most
common variety followed by horizontal and anterior canal variants. In majority of cases the cause of BPPV is idiopathic
followed by head trauma, vestibular neuronitis, Meniere’s disease, migraine and
ear surgery. Therapeutic
maneuvers are more effective in treating these patients with high success
ratehence should be tried in all patients with BPPV unless contraindicated to
reduce unnecessary
diagnostic procedures and costs.
Abbreviations:
BPPV- Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, PRM- particle reposition maneuver,
AC-Anterior canal, PC-posterior canal, HC-horizontal canal, SCC-semi circular
canal.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest: None
Ethical approval: Local ethical committee approved
References
1.
Gaur S, Awasthi SK, Bhadouriya SK, et al. Efficacy of Epley's Maneuver in
Treating BPPV Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Int J Otolaryngol.
2015;2015:487160. doi: 10.1155/2015/487160. Epub 2015 Oct 1.[pubmed]
2.
van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, van Leeuwen RB, et al. Prevalence of unrecognized
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo in older patients. Eur Arch
Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Jun;272(6):1521-4. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3409-4. Epub
2014 Dec 9.[pubmed]
3.
von Brevern M, Seelig T, Neuhauser H, et al. Benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo predominantly affects the right labyrinth. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatry. 2004 Oct;75(10):1487-8. DOI:10.1136/jnnp.2003.031500.[pubmed]
4.
Parnes LS, Agrawal SK, Atlas J. Diagnosis and management of benign paroxysmal
positional vertigo (BPPV). CMAJ. 2003 Sep 30;169(7):681-93.[pubmed]
5.
Bhattacharyya N, Baugh RF, Orvidas L, et al. Clinical practice guideline:
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008
Nov;139(5 Suppl 4):S47-81. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.08.022.[pubmed]
6.
Xiang-Dong G. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. J Neurosci Rural Pract.
2011 Jan;2(1):109-10. doi: 10.4103/0976-3147.80091.[pubmed]
7.
Tang H, Li W. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of benign paroxysmal
positional vertigo. Exp Ther Med. 2017 Sep;14(3):2424-2430. doi:
10.3892/etm.2017.4837. Epub 2017 Jul 25.[pubmed]
8.
Soto Varela A, Bartual Magro J, Santos Pérez S, et al. Benign paroxysmal
vertigo: a comparative prospective study of the efficacy of Brandt and Daroff
exercises, Semont and Epley maneuver. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord).
2001;122(3):179-83.[pubmed]
9.
Davies RA, Luxon LM. Dizziness following head injury: a neuro-otological study.
J Neurol. 1995 Mar;242(4):222-30.[pubmed]
10.
Gyo K. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo as a complication of postoperative
bedrest. Laryngoscope. 1988 Mar;98(3):332-3.
DOI:10.1288/00005537-198803000-00019.
11.
Marciano E, Marcelli V. Postural restrictions in labyrintholithiasis. Eur Arch
Otorhinolaryngol. 2002 May;259(5):262-5. Epub 2002 Mar 19.
DOI:10.1007/s00405-001-0445-7.[pubmed]
12.
Honrubia V, Baloh RW, Harris MR, et al. Paroxysmal positional vertigo syndrome.
Am J Otol. 1999 Jul;20(4):465-70.[pubmed]
13.
Soto-Varela A, Santos-Perez S, Rossi-Izquierdo M, et al. Are the three canals
equally susceptible to benign paroxysmal positional vertigo? Audiol Neurootol.
2013;18(5):327-34. doi: 10.1159/000354649. Epub 2013 Sep 28.[pubmed]
14.
Epley JM. The canalith repositioning procedure: for treatment of benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992
Sep;107(3):399-404. DOI:10.1177/019459989210700310
15.
Parnes LS, Price-Jones RG. Particle repositioning maneuver for benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1993
May;102(5):325-31. DOI:10.1177/000348949310200501
16.
Lee SH, Kim JS. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. J Clin Neurol. 2010
Jun;6(2):51-63. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2010.6.2.51. Epub 2010 Jun 30.[pubmed]
17.
Prokopakis E, Vlastos IM, Tsagournisakis M, et al. Canalith repositioning
procedures among 965 patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Audiol
Neurootol. 2013;18(2):83-8. doi: 10.1159/000343579. Epub 2012 Nov 6.[pubmed]
18.
Hornibrook J. Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV): History,
Pathophysiology, Office Treatment and Future Directions. Int J Otolaryngol
2011;2011:835671.
19.
Li JC. Mastoid oscillation: a critical factor for success in canalith
repositioning procedure. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Jun;112(6):670-5.
DOI:10.1016/S0194-59989570174-5
20.
Blakley BW. A randomized, controlled assessment of the canalith repositioning
maneuver. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994 Apr;110(4):391-6.[pubmed]
21.
Wolf JS, Boyev KP, Manokey BJ, et al. Success of the modified Epley maneuver in
treating benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Laryngoscope. 1999
Jun;109(6):900-3.[pubmed]
22.
Herdman SJ, Tusa RJ, Zee DS, et al. Single treatment approaches to benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993
Apr;119(4):450-4.[pubmed]
How to cite this article?
Subramanya BT, Lohith S, Sphoorthi B, Chandralekha T.V.R. Benign peroxismal positional vertigo: our experience in 40 cases. Ophthal Rev: Tro J ophtha & Oto.2018;3(4):113-118.doi: 10.17511/jooo.2018.i4.08.