Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4433_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
254 BAlAnCE FunCtion AssEssmEnt And mAnAgEmEnt
https://t.me/medicina_free
Grad, A., & Baloh, R. W. (1989). Vertigo of vascular origin:
Clinical and ENG features in 84 cases. Archives of Neurol-
ogy, 46, 281.
Gregorius, F. K., Crandall, P. H., & Baloh, R. W. (1976). Posi-
tional vertigo with cerebellar astrocytoma. Surgical Neurol-
ogy, 6(5), 283–286.
Hain, T. C., Helminski, J. O., Reis, I. L., & Uddin, M. K. (2000).
Vibration does not improve results of the canalith repositioning procedure. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head and
Neck Surgery, 126(5), 617–622.
Hall, S. F., Ruby, R. R., & McClure, J. A. (1979). The mechan-
ics of benign paroxysmal vertigo. Journal of Otolaryngology,
8(2), 151–158.
Harrison, M. S., & Ozsahinoglu, C. (1972). Positional vertigo:
Aetiology and clinical significance. Brain, 95(2), 369–372.
Harrison, M. S., & Ozsahinoglu, C. (1975). Positional vertigo.
Archives of Otolaryngology, 101(11), 675–678.
Herdman, S. J., & Tusa, R. J. (1996). Complications of the
canalith repositioning procedure. Archives of Otolaryngol-
ogy–Head and Neck Surgery, 122(3), 281–286.
Herdman, S. J., Tusa, R. J., & Clendaniel, R. A. (1994). Eye
movement signs in verical canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. In A. F. Fuchs, T. Brandt, U. Buttner, &
D. S. Zee (Eds.), Contemporary ocular motor and vestibular
research: A tribute to David A. Robinson (pp. 385–387). New
York, NY: Thieme Medical.
Herdman, S. J., Tusa, R. J., Zee, D. S., Proctor, L. R., & Mattox,
D. E. (1993). Single treatment approaches to benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head
and Neck Surgery, 119(4), 450–454.
Hilton, M., & Pinder, D. (2004) The Epley (canalith reposition-
ing) manoeuvre for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews., (2):CD003162.
Honrubia, V., Baloh, R. W., Harris, M. R., & Jacobson, K. M.
(1999). Paroxysmal positional vertigo syndrome. American
Journal of Otolology, 20(4), 465–470.
Hunt, W. T., Zimmermann, E. F., & Hilton, M. P. (2012). Modi-
fications of the Epley (canalith repositioning) manoeuvre
for posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
(BPPV). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(4),
CD008675.
Jackson, L. E., Morgan, B., Fletcher, J. C., Jr., & Krueger, W. W.
(2007). Anterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: An underappreciated entity. Otology & Neurotology,
28(2), 218–222.
Jacobson, G. P., Butcher, J. A., Newman, C. W., & Monsell,
E. M. (1995). When paroxysmal positioning vertigo isn’t
benign. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 6(4),
346–349.
Katsarkas, A., & Kirkham, T. H. (1978). Paroxysmal positional
vertigo––a study of 255 cases. Journal of Otolaryngology,
7(4), 320–330.
Kattah, J. C., Kolsky, M. P., & Luessenhop, A. J. (1984). Posi-
tional vertigo and the cerebellar vermis. Neurology, 34(4),
527–529.
Kim, H. A., Yi, H. A., & Lee, H. (2012). Apogeotropic central
positional nystagmus as a sole sign of nodular infarction.
Neurological Science, 33(5), 1189–1191.
Kim, J. S., Oh, S. Y., Lee, S. H., Kang, J. H., Kim, D. U., Jeong,
S. H., . . . Kim, H. J. (2012a). Randomized clinical trial for
geotropic horizontal canal benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo. Neurology, 79(7), 700–707.
Kim, J. S., Oh, S. Y., Lee, S. H., Kang, J. H., Kim, D. U., Jeong,
S. H., . . . Kim, H. J. (2012b). Randomized clinical trial for
apogeotropic horizontal canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Neurology, 78(3), 159–166.
Kim, S. H., Jo, S-W., Chung, W-K., Byeon, H. K., & Lee, W-S.
(2012). A cupulolith repositioning maneuver in the treatment of horizontal canal cupulolithiasis. Auris Nasus Lar-
ynx, 39(2), 163–168.
Kim, Y. K., Shin, J. E., & Chung, J. W. (2005). The effect of
canalith repositioning for anterior semicircular canal canalithiasis. ORL Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Its Related
Specialties, 67(1), 56–60.
Korres, S., Balatsouras, D. G., Kaberos, A., Economou, C.,
Kandiloros, D., & Ferekidis, E. (2002). Occurrence of semicircular canal involvement in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otology & Neurotology, 23(6), 926–932.
Korres, S., Riga, M., Balatsouras, D., & Sandris, V. (2008). Benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo of the anterior semicircular
canal: Atypical clinical findings and possible underlying
mechanisms. International Journal of Audiology, 47(5), 276–
282.
Korres, S., Riga, M., Sandris, V., Danielides, V., & Sismanis,
A. (2010). Canalithiasis of the anterior semicircular canal
(ASC): Treatment options based on the possible underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. International Journal of Audi-
ology, 49(8), 606–612.
Kroenke, K., Hoffman, R. M., & Einstadter, D. (2000). How
common are various causes of dizziness? A critical review.
Southern Medical Journal, 93(2), 160–167.
Kveton, J. F., & Kashgarian, M. (1994). Particulate matter
within the membranous labyrinth: Pathologic or normal?
American Journal of Otology, 15(2), 173–176.
Lanska, D. J., & Remler, B. (1997). Benign paroxysmal
positioning vertigo: Classic descriptions, origins of the
provocative positioning technique, and conceptual developments. Neurology, 48(5), 1167–1177.
Lempert, T., & Tiel-Wilck, K. (1996). A positional maneuver
for treatment of horizontal-canal benign positional vertigo. Laryngoscope, 106, 476–478.
Levrat, E., van Melle, G., Monnier, P., & Maire, R. (2003). Effi-
cacy of the Semont maneuver in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck
Surgery, 129(6), 629–633.
Lopez-Escamez, J. A., Molina, M. I., & Gamiz, M. J. (2006).
Anterior semicircular canal benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo and positional downbeating nystagmus. American
Journal of Otolaryngology, 27(3), 173–178.
Lynn, S., Pool, A., Rose, D., Brey, R., & Suman, V. (1995). Ran-
domized trial of the canalith repositioning procedure. Oto-
laryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 113(6), 712–720.
Mandalà, M., Pepponi, E., Santoro, G. P., Cambi, J., Casani, A.,
Faralli, M., . . . Nuti, D. (2013). Double-blind randomized
trial on the efficacy of the Gufoni maneuver for treatment
of lateral canal BPPV. Laryngoscope, 123(7), 1782–1786.

11. PositionAl tEsting And trEAtmEnt 255
https://t.me/medicina_free
Mandalà, M., Santoro, G. P., Asprella Libonati, G., Casani,
A. P., Faralli, M., Giannoni, B., . . . Nuti, D. (2012). Double-blind randomized trial on short-term efficacy of the
Semont maneuver for the treatment of posterior canal
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Journal of Neurol-
ogy, 259(5), 882–885.
Massoud, E. A., & Ireland, D. J. (1996). Posttreatment instruc-
tions in the nonsurgical management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Journal of Otolaryngology, 25(2),
121–125.
McClure, J. A. (1985). Horizontal canal BPV. Journal of Otolar-
yngology, 14(1), 30–35.
Mizukoshi, K., Watanabe, Y., Shojaku, H., Okubo, J., & Wata-
nabe, I. (1988). Epidemiological studies on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo in Japan. Acta Otolaryngology
Supplement, 447, 67–72.
Moriarty, B., Rutka, J., & Hawke, M. (1992). The incidence and
distribution of cupular deposits in the labyrinth. Laryngo-
scope, 102(1), 56–59.
Neuhauser, H., Leopold, M., von Brevern, M., Arnold, G., &
Lempert, T. (2001). The interrelations of migraine, vertigo,
and migrainous vertigo. Neurology, 56(4), 436–441.
Nuti, D., Nati, C., & Passali, D. (2000). Treatment of benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo: No need for postmaneuver
restrictions. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 122(3),
440–444.
Nuti, D., Vannucchi, P., & Pagnini, P. (1996). Benign parox-
ysmal positional vertigo of the horizontal canal: A form
of canalolithiasis with variable clinical features. Journal of
Vestibular Research, 6(3), 173–184.
Nylén, C. O. (1931). Clinical study on positional nystagmus
in cases of brain tumor. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Supplement
15, 1–111.
Nylén, C. O. (1950). Positional nystagmus: A review and
future prospects. Journal of Laryngolgy and Otology, 64(6),
295–318.
Oh, S. Y., Kim, J. S., Jeong, S. H., Oh, Y. M., Choi, K. D., Kim,
B. K., . . . Lee, J. J. (2009). Treatment of apogeotropic benign
positional vertigo: Comparison of therapeutic head-shaking and modified Semont maneuver. Journal of Neurology,
256(8), 1330–1336.
Pagnini, P., Nuti, D., & Vannucchi, P. (1989). Benign parox-
ysmal vertigo of the horizontal canal. ORL Journal of Oto-
rhinolaryngology and Its Related Specialties, 51(3), 161–170.
Parnes, L. S., & McClure, J. A. (1992). Free-floating endo-
lymph particles: A new operative finding during posterior
semicircular canal occlusion. Laryngoscope, 102(9), 988–992.
Prokopakis, E. P., Chimona, T., Tsagournisakis, M., Christo-
doulou, P., Hirsch, B. E., Lachanas, V. A., . . . Velegrakis, G.
A. (2005). Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: 10-year
experience in treating 592 patients with canalith repositioning procedure. Laryngoscope, 115(9), 1667–1671.
Radtke, A., von Brevern, M., Neuhauser, H., Hottenrott, T., &
Lempert, T. (2012). Vestibular migraine: Long-term followup of clinical symptoms and vestibulo-cochlear findings.
Neurology, 79(15), 1607–1614.
Rajguru, S. M., Ifediba, M. A., & Rabbitt, R. D. (2004). Three-
dimensional biomechanical model of benign paroxysmal
positional vertigo. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 32(6),
831–846.
Ruckenstein, M. J., & Shepard, N. T. (2007). The canalith repo-
sitioning procedure with and without mastoid oscillation
for the treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
ORL Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Its Related Specialties, 69(5), 295–298.
Sakata, E., Ohtsu, K., Shimura, H., & Sakai, S. (1987). Posi-
tional nystagmus of benign paroxysmal type (BPPN) due
to cerebellar vermis lesions. Pseudo-BPPN. Auris Nasus
Larynx, 14(1), 17–21.
Schuknecht, H. F. (1962). Positional vertigo: clinical and
experimental observations. Trans American Academy of
Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, 66, 319–332.
Schuknecht, H. F., & Ruby, R. R. (1973). Cupulolithiasis.
Advances in Otorhinolaryngology, 20, 434–443.
Semont, A., Freyss, G., & Vitte, E. (1988). Curing the BPPV
with a liberatory maneuver. Advances in Otorhinolaryngol-
ogy, 42, 290–293.
Seok, J. I., Lee, H. M., Yoo, J. H., & Lee, D. K. (2008). Resid-
ual dizziness after successful repositioning treatment in
patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Jour-
nal of Clinical Neurology, 4(3), 107–110.
Shepard, N. T., & Telian, S. A. (1996), Practical management of
the balance disorder patient (p. 55). San Diego, CA: Singular
Publishing Group.
Shoman, N., & Longridge, N. (2007). Cerebellar vermis
lesions and tumours of the fourth ventricle in patients
with positional and positioning vertigo and nystagmus.
Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 121(2), 166–169.
Simhadri, S., Panda, N., & Raghunathan, M. (2003). Efficacy
of particle repositioning maneuver in BPPV: A prospective
study. American Journal of Otolaryngology, 24(6), 355–360.
Squires, T. M., Weidman, M. S., Hain, T. C., & Stone, H. A.
(2004). A mathematical model for top-shelf vertigo: The
role of sedimenting otoconia in BPPV. Journal of Biomechan-
ics, 37(8), 1137–1146.
Steddin, S., & Brandt, T. (1996). Horizontal canal benign
paroxysmal positioning vertigo (h-BPPV): Transition of
canalolithiasis to cupulolithiasis. Annals of Neurology, 40,
918–922.
Strupp, M., Planck, J. H., Arbusow, V., Steiger, H. J., Bruck-
mann, H., & Brandt, T. (2000). Rotational vertebral artery
occlusion syndrome with vertigo due to “labyrinthine
excitation.” Neurology, 54(6), 1376–1379.
Tirelli, G., & Russolo, M. (2004). 360-Degree canalith repo-
sitioning procedure for the horizontal canal. Otolaryngol-
ogy–Head and Neck Surgery, 131(5), 740–746.
Vannucchi, P., Giannoni, B., & Pagnini, P. (1997). Treatment
of horizontal semicircular canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Journal of Vestibular Research, 7(1), 1–6.
von Brevern, M., Radtke, A., Lezius, F., Feldmann, M., Ziese,
T., Lempert, T., & Neuhauser, H. (2007). Epidemiology of
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: A population-based
study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,
78(7), 710–715.
von Brevern, M., Seelig, T., Radtke, A., Tiel-Wilck, K., Neu-
hauser, H., & Lempert, T. (2006). Short-term efficacy of

256 BAlAnCE FunCtion AssEssmEnt And mAnAgEmEnt
https://t.me/medicina_free
Epley’s manoeuvre: A double-blind randomised trial.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 77(8),
980–982.
von Brevern, M., Zeise, D., Neuhauser, H., Clarke, A. H., &
Lempert, T. (2005). Acute migrainous vertigo: Clinical and
oculographic findings. Brain., 128(Pt. 2), 365–374.
Watson, P., Barber, H. O., Deck, J., & Terbrugge, K. (1981).
Positional vertigo and nystagmus of central origin. Cana-
dian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 8(2), 133–137.
Welling, D. B., Parnes, L. S., Obrien, B., Bakaletz, L., Brack-
mann, D. E., & Hinojosa, R. (1997). Particulate matter in the
posterior semicircular canal. Laryngoscope, 107(1), 90–94.
White, J., Savvides, P., Cherian, N., & Oas, J. (2005). Canalith
repositioning for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
Otology & Neurotology, 26(4), 704–710.
Wityk, R. J., Chang, H. M., Rosengart, A., Han, W. C., Dewitt,
L. D., Pessin, M. S., & Caplan, L. R. (1998). Proximal
extracranial vertebral artery disease in the New England
Medical Center Posterior Circulation Registry. Archives of
Neurology, 55(4), 470–478.
Woodworth, B. A., Gillespie, M. B., & Lambert, P. R. (2004).
The canalith repositioning procedure for benign positional vertigo: A meta-analysis. Laryngoscope, 114(7), 1143–
1146.
Yacovino, D. A., Hain, T. C., & Gualtieri, F. (2009). New ther-
apeutic maneuver for anterior canal benign paroxysmal
positional vertigo. Journal of Neurology, 256(11), 1851–1855.
Yimtae, K., Srirompotong, S., Srirompotong, S., & Sae-Seaw,
P. (2003). A randomized trial of the canalith repositioning
procedure. Laryngoscope, 113(5), 828–832.

12
https://t.me/medicina_free
Caloric Testing
Kamran Barin
OVERVIEW
The function of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) can
be evaluated by stimulating the vestibular system and
measuring the eye movement responses. Head movements provide the natural and physiologic stimulation
for the vestibular system but under most conditions, it
is not possible to restrict such stimuli to one labyrinth
at a time. As a result, caloric irrigations have been used
historically as a more practical method for testing vestibular function in clinical settings. In the caloric test,
the external auditory canal is irrigated by a medium
that has a significantly different temperature compared
with body temperature. The temperature gradient
eventually reaches the labyrinth and under the appropriate conditions can result in cupular deflections that
produce vestibular responses.
Despite a number of limitations, caloric irrigations offer a major advantage over other types of vestibular stimulation. Unlike head movements, which
always stimulate both labyrinths simultaneously,
caloric irrigations allow each labyrinth to be evaluated
independently (Baloh & Honrubia, 2001). Also, caloric
stimulation can be generated by relatively small-sized
and inexpensive equipment.
This chapter describes how to perform and interpret the caloric test. The underlying principles of
the caloric test are also discussed so that the examiner
can recognize the limitations and artifacts when they
occur.
BACKGROUND
Mechanism of Caloric Stimulation
The first detailed description of the caloric test and its
underlying mechanism is attributed to Robert Bárány
(Baloh, 2002). In his now well-known book published
almost a century ago, Bárány (1907) described caloric
irrigations administered in the supine position with
the head placed at an angle of 30 degrees with respect
to the horizontal plane (Figure 12–1A). In this head
position, known as the caloric test position, the lateral
(horizontal) semicircular canals become aligned with
the plane of gravity. In the absence of caloric stimulation, no responses are evoked from the lateral canals
because the cupula and the surrounding endolymph
have the same densities and are not affected by gravity. When the external auditory canal is irrigated with a
medium that is considerably cooler or warmer than the
body temperature, a temperature gradient is generated
across the lateral canal of the irrigated ear. According to
Bárány, the temperature gradient changes the density
of the endolymph on the side of the canal closest to the
site of irrigation. If that explanation is correct, warm
irrigations in the standard caloric test position should
cause the endolymph to become lighter and rise, thus
generating an ampullopetal deflection of the cupula.
Such a deflection should cause an excitatory response
from the lateral canal and generate nystagmus with
its fast phases beating toward the irrigated ear (see
257

258 BALANCE FUNCTION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
https://t.me/medicina_free
figure 12–1. Effects of caloric stimulation on the neural firing and the eye movement responses with the patient:
supine with the head tilted up 30º (A), or prone with the head tilted down 30º (B).
irrigation. Based on Barin, K. (2009). Clinical Neurophysiology of the Vestibular System. In J. Katz, L. Medwetsky, R. Burkhart, and L. Hood, (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Audiology (6th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Figure 12–1A). Conversely, cool irrigations should
cause the endolymph to become heavier and sink, thus
generating an inhibitory response from the irrigated
ear. The nystagmus fast phases should beat away from
the side of irrigation. The relationship between the
temperature in the irrigated ear and the direction of
the evoked nystagmus fast phases is summarized by
the acronym COWS — cold opposite, warm, same.
For many years, experimental findings were
consistent with the above explanation and supported
Bárány’s predictions regarding the mechanism of
Solid arrows indicate the onset of
caloric irrigations. The first serious challenge to this
hypothesis came from one of the Spacelab I experiments in which caloric responses were observed in the
absence of gravity (Scherer et al., 1986). This finding
could not be explained based on Bárány’s hypothesis
because the change of the endolymph density depends
on the presence of gravity. Alternative hypotheses have
since emerged, including the direct effect of temperature on the vestibular nerve (Hood, 1989) and gravityindependent changes in the volume or pressure of the
endolymph (Gentine, Eichhorn, Kopp, & Conraux,

12. CAloriC tEsting 259
https://t.me/medicina_free
1991). However, there are a number of compelling
experimental findings that cannot be explained by any
mechanism other than the one proposed by Bárány.
For example, Figure 12–1B shows what happens when
caloric irrigations are administered with the patient
in the prone position with the head tilted 30 degrees
downward. The lateral canals are still in the vertical
plane but their orientation with respect to gravity is
the reverse of that in the standard caloric position. If
the caloric stimulations are mediated entirely by gravity-independent mechanisms, the nystagmus direction
should be the same in the supine and prone positions. However, the exact opposite is expected under
Bárány’s hypothesis. That is, warm irrigations in the
prone position should generate nystagmus with the
fast phases beating away from the irrigated ear. The
reason is that the rise of lighter endolymph should now
cause an ampullofugal flow of the endolymph, which
should result in the inhibition of the irrigated lateral
canal. Similarly, cool irrigations in the prone position
should generate nystagmus with the fast phases beating toward the irrigated ear, indicating excitation of the
irrigated lateral canal.
Coats and Smith (1967) demonstrated that the
direction of nystagmus was indeed different in the
supine and prone positions. Furthermore, the intensity
of the nystagmus was slightly higher for the supine
position. They concluded that the primary component
of caloric stimulation was the change in the endolymph density. Additionally, they proposed that there
was a secondary component involving direct stimulation of the vestibular nerve. The first component is
gravity dependent as postulated by Bárány, whereas
the second component is gravity independent. Coats
and Smith (1967) attributed the difference in nystagmus intensity in different head positions to the fact
that in the supine position, the two components are
added but in the prone position, the two components
are subtracted. This explains why caloric responses in
the supine position are slightly larger than those in the
prone position. Today, the general consensus on the
mechanism of caloric stimulation is very similar to
the views expressed by Coats and Smith (1967). That
is, caloric stimulation consists of two components,
one gravity dependent and the other gravity independent. Hood (1989) suggested that the contribution of
the gravity-independent component was very small
(~10%) and the change in the endolymph density was
the dominant mechanism underlying caloric responses.
It is well known that caloric stimuli are highly
variable and depend on characteristics that are different from one individual to another. The effect of
some of these differences, such as a perforated tym-
panic membrane (TM), is obvious. Other differences,
such as the dimensions of the internal meatus, have a
less obvious and more puzzling effect on the caloric
stimulus (O’Neill, 1995). It is fair to say that the precise mechanisms of caloric stimulation are still not fully
understood.
Limitations of the Caloric Test
The caloric test suffers from a number of shortcomings. First, caloric stimuli are not calibrated (Stockwell,
1997). Even though the external stimulus is the same,
the effect on the labyrinth differs from one patient to
another and sometimes from one ear to the other in the
same patient. Therefore, one cannot compare the sensitivity of the labyrinths in different patients by comparing the absolute responses to caloric stimuli. The
variability in the caloric stimulus can be reduced to a
manageable level by comparing the responses of the
right and left ears of the same patient. In such a case,
one has to make a key assumption that both labyrinths
receive equal stimulation. Therefore, caloric responses
from the right and left ears are expected to be equal in
an individual with normal vestibular function. In practice, the difference between right and left responses
of a normal person can be relatively large due to the
variability of the caloric stimulus. Furthermore, the
assumption of both labyrinths receiving equal stimulation is not valid when perforations or other anatomic
anomalies are present.
The second limitation of the caloric test is that
it is primarily a test of the lateral semicircular canals
and their afferent neural pathways. Although caloric
responses from the anterior and posterior semicircular canals are possible (Fetter, Aw, Haslwanter, Heimberger, & Dichgans, 1998), the distance from the external
auditory canal makes it impractical for the temperature
gradient to effectively reach the vertical canals. In some
individuals, caloric irrigations do provoke small vertical and torsional nystagmus from the anterior and posterior canals, but horizontal nystagmus from the lateral
canal dominates the overall response (Aw, Haslwanter,
Fetter, Heimberger, & Todd, 1998).
The third limitation of the caloric test is that it
generates extremely low-frequency stimulation of the
vestibular system. The vestibular receptors respond
best to brief head movements within the frequency
range of about 0.1 to 3 Hz. The caloric stimulus is
estimated to be equivalent to head movements with
the frequency of approximately 0.003 Hz (Hamid,
Hughes, & Kinney, 1987). As a result, some compare
testing the vestibular system with the caloric stimulus

260 BALANCE FUNCTION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
https://t.me/medicina_free
to testing the auditory system at frequencies that are
not commonly included in audiometric testing.
Finally, caloric irrigations are distressing and
poorly tolerated by some patients. If the patient experiences severe vertigo and nausea before completing
the caloric test, the results are rarely useful. The examiner should try to predict when the patient is likely to
become ill and discontinue the irrigation before the
onset of severe symptoms.
Given the limitations of the caloric test and the
introduction of newer vestibular tests such as vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) and video
head impulse testing (vHIT), some have advocated
abandoning the caloric test as a routine part of evaluation for dizzy patients. However, it is important to recognize that despite these limitations, the caloric test has
withstood the test of time and has been the single most
useful test of the labyrinth and its afferent pathways.
This is especially true in view of recent findings showing discrepancies in the caloric test and vHIT findings
in different vestibular patient groups (Jung, Suh, &
Kim, 2017; McCaslin, Rivas, Jacobson, & Bennett, 2015;
Redondo-Martinez et al., 2016). Therefore, it seems that
other vestibular tests can help in reducing the reliance
on the caloric test, but it is premature to assume that
they can replace the caloric test.
CALORIC IRRIGATORS
Two types of caloric irrigators are in clinical use today:
water (open-loop) and air. A third type, the closedloop water irrigator, is no longer manufactured commercially and will not be discussed further. Both water
and air irrigator types are capable of delivering caloric
stimulation at precise temperatures. Almost all com-
mercially available irrigators today have a built-in
timer and a flow meter to regulate the duration and
volume of irrigation. Furthermore, for computerized
electronystagmography (ENG) and videonystagmography (VNG) systems, the irrigation temperature can
be controlled by the computer to minimize the need for
operator intervention.
There is controversy about the clinical use of air
irrigators. The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) does not include them as a standard irrigation
method in its latest recommendations for caloric testing (ANSI, 2009). The decision to exclude air in the
ANSI standard is explained based on the lack of published data “to establish response variability equivalent
to water calorics.” On the other hand, the British Society of Audiology (BSA), which has also published a set
of standards for caloric testing, considers air irrigators
acceptable for clinical use (BSA, 2010).
Given the controversy about air irrigators, it is
worthwhile to consider the differences between the
two irrigation methods. Table 12–1 summarizes the
standard parameters recommended by ANSI and BSA
for water and air irrigators. As is obvious from temperature, duration, and flow rate requirements, the heat
capacity of air is far less than that of water (Fleming,
Proctor, Dix, & Metz, 1978). That means that regulating the temperature at the irrigator tip is crucial to the
success of air irrigations. In addition, the actual temperature in the ear canal depends on the design of the
delivery tip. The recommended temperatures in Table
12–1 are for irrigator tips where the air flows freely in
and out of the ear canal. Some air irrigators seal the ear
canal during the irrigation and cause the temperature
at the TM to be significantly different compared with
the temperature at the irrigator tip. Using the standard
temperatures, especially for warm irrigations, can pose
safety issues because the excess temperature can cause
Table 12–1. Irrigation Parameters Recommended by Different Organizations
Volume 200
Duration 40
Temperature
(warm/cool)
Recommended by ANSI
(2009)
Water Air Water Air
± 20 mL/min
± 1 sec
44ºC/30ºC
± 0.5ºC
X
X 30 sec 60 sec
X
Recommended by BSA
(2010)
250
± 10 mL
44ºC/30ºC
± 0.4ºC
8
± 0.4 liters
50ºC/24ºC
± 0.4ºC

12. CAloriC tEsting 261
https://t.me/medicina_free
a burning sensation in the ear canal. Therefore, any
facility that uses this type of irrigator must follow the
manufacturer’s temperature settings and establish its
own normative values.
Another concern with some air irrigators is that
they can heat air but they do not cool it. Instead, these
irrigators use the air at the ambient temperature. These
irrigators should be avoided for clinical use.
There are two papers that have addressed ANSI’s
concerns regarding air irrigators. Zapala, Olsholt,
and Lundy (2008) in a large-scale retrospective study
showed that the sensitivity and specificity of both
air and water calorics were similar for differentiating
between normal and abnormal patients. In addition,
they showed that the differences between warm and
cool irrigation responses were higher for water calorics
and that air calorics produced more uniform responses.
Zapala et al. (2008) used slightly different temperatures for air calorics than those listed in Table 12–1 and
they have advocated a similar procedure to calibrate
caloric parameters as they did for their study. Similarly,
Marques Perrella de Barros and Caovilla (2012) showed
that there were no significant differences in unilateral
weakness and directional preponderance for air versus water calorics in 40 healthy individuals. They did
report higher nystagmus intensities for individual irrigations for water calorics compared with those for air
calorics. This may explain the anecdotal reports that
patients generally experience more discomfort during
water calorics.
The exclusion of air in the ANSI standard has been
largely ignored by the clinical community. Today, air
irrigators are the most widely used method for generating caloric stimuli, and their sales continue to outpace
the sale of water irrigators by a large margin (personal
communication with MicroMedical/Interacoustics and
Otometrics/Natus).
Review of water and air irrigators show that both
have advantages and limitations. The main advantage
of water irrigators is that they are relatively simple and
do not require a great deal of technical skill. The main
disadvantage is the inconvenience. The returned water
from the ear must be collected and some patients find
water irrigations unpleasant because they produce
strong caloric responses. Also, water irrigators cannot
be used in patients with TM perforations. The main
advantage of air is the convenience. There is no water
to collect and it can be used in patients with TM perforations. The main disadvantage of air irrigators is
that they require more technical skill and a longer
learning process.
In summary, both irrigation methods provide
acceptable caloric stimulation. However, the examiner
must acquire the necessary skill to perform appropriate
irrigations using whichever method he or she chooses.
Furthermore, it should be noted that design differences
for different irrigator models, especially for air irrigators, can influence the strength of the caloric stimulation. As a result, each clinic must either establish its
own normative values or calibrate the caloric stimuli
using methods similar to those described by Zapala
et al. (2008).
PERFORMING THE CALORIC TEST
The most common form of caloric testing is the bithermal caloric test. In this test, each ear is irrigated twice
— once with a warm temperature and once with a
cool temperature. This generates both excitatory and
inhibitory responses from both ears. The validity of the
caloric test is based on the assumption that both ears
receive adequate and approximately equal stimulation.
Some of the factors that affect the strength of caloric
stimulation can be controlled by the examiner, such
as the temperature and the duration of irrigations. It
is the responsibility of the examiner to ensure that the
controllable test parameters remain constant from one
irrigation to another. Other factors are not controllable,
such as the ear anatomy. The examiner must make a
note of those uncontrolled factors that may affect the
validity of the caloric test.
Preliminary Procedures
A few preliminary tasks should be performed before
the caloric test. The ears should be inspected otoscopically before the test. If there is cerumen blocking the ear
canal, it should be removed before the irrigations. Even
when the cerumen is not completely blocking the TM,
the examiner may want to remove it because the irrigation medium can push the cerumen deeper into the
ear canal and impede the heat transfer. When removing
the cerumen, it is best to suction or spoon it out instead
of washing the ear canal with water. This is especially
important for the users of air caloric systems because
the remaining moisture in the ear canal may produce
a cooling effect during warm irrigations and result in
nystagmus initially beating in the opposite direction of
what is expected for warm irrigations.
During the ear inspection, the examiner must
make a note of any anatomic anomalies, such as those
caused by surgery or trauma. Even when the ears look
normal, anatomic changes may affect the heat transfer

262 BAlAnCE FunCtion AssEssmEnt And mAnAgEmEnt
https://t.me/medicina_free
and interfere with caloric testing. Therefore, differences
in the caloric responses from different ears should be
interpreted cautiously when there is a history of ear
surgery. Similarly, ear inspection should note any evidence of TM perforation, middle ear fluid, or otitis
externa.
Before the test, the examiner should explain the
procedure to the patient in an honest but nonthreatening manner. Developing good rapport is important
because many patients are apprehensive about the
caloric test. It is best to reassure the patient that the sensation of motion during caloric irrigations is expected
and will not last long.
Standard Bithermal Caloric
Test Procedure
First, the patient should be placed in the supine position with the head raised about 30 degrees. Eye movements must be calibrated at the beginning of the caloric
test (see the next section about calibrations between
irrigations). Next, visual fixation should be eliminated.
At this time, the examiner should start the eye movement recording system and begin alerting the patient.
The presence of any pre-existing nystagmus should
be noted. The irrigation should begin promptly and
should last anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds depending
on the irrigation system (see Table 12–1). Once the irrigation ends, the examiner should continue alerting the
patient. The caloric response continues to get stronger
and usually reaches its peak around 30 seconds after
the end of the irrigation (about 60 to 90 seconds from
the onset of the irrigation). Shortly after the response
reaches its peak and begins to decline, the examiner
should ask the patient to fixate on a stationary target.
The fixation period is usually 5 to 10 seconds, after
which the fixation should be eliminated again. The
tracings should be marked to identify the beginning
and the end of fixation. Eye movement recordings
should continue until the caloric response subsides
(usually two or three minutes from the onset of irrigation). After a waiting period, the remaining irrigations
should be performed in the same manner.
Recalibration Before Each Irrigation
The ANSI (2009) standard as well as an earlier report
by the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA, 1992) recommend recalibration
of eye movements before each irrigation. However,
the most recent BSA recommendation has reversed the
earlier standard and no longer requires it (BSA 2010).
The concept of recalibration before each irrigation was
a reasonable one for the users of older noncomputerized ENG equipment. However, for more modern computerized ENG and VNG systems, recalibration before
each irrigation is an outdated recommendation that
should be reconsidered.
Unlike ENG, in which eye movements are estimated indirectly by measuring the corneoretinal
potential (CRP), eye movements in VNG are estimated
directly by measuring the movements of the pupils.
Therefore, recalibrations are unnecessary as long as the
orientation of the cameras does not change with respect
to the patient’s eyes. Even routine removal and replacement of the goggles have been shown to have minimal
effect on the calibration (Andrew & Meredith, 2009).
Alerting Tasks
In any vestibular test that is performed in the absence
of fixation, including the caloric test, it is necessary to
keep the patient alert during the test (Jacobson & Newman, 1993). The purpose of alerting tasks is to maintain
a steady stimulation of the higher cortical level brain
activity that is most likely needed to generate the fast
phases of nystagmus (Barin, 2009). As a result, the
requirement for alerting tasks is independent of the eye
movement measurement method.
A number of studies have examined the effect of
different alerting tasks on the caloric response parameters (e.g., Davis & Mann, 1987; Formby et al., 1992). The
most effective alerting tasks are those requiring interaction of the patient with the examiner in which the
patient is required to recall items from memory, such as
names of states, cities, and so forth. The alerting tasks
should be moderately challenging and on topics that
are of interest to the patient.
Practical Considerations in
Performing the Caloric Test
Although the above procedure is straightforward, there
are many controversies and practical considerations
that must be addressed.
Order of Irrigations
The ANSI and British standards recommend performing irrigations in the bithermal caloric test in a specific
order (ANSI, 2009; BSA, 2010). Warm irrigations are to
be performed first, followed by cool irrigations in both
standards. The ANSI standard requires the right ear to

12. CAloriC tEsting 263
https://t.me/medicina_free
be irrigated first for both warm and cool temperatures.
The BSA standard allows either the right or the left ear
to be irrigated first, as long as the same order is used
for both temperatures.
The main reason for the recommended sequence
in the ANSI standard is the systematic decline in the
intensity of caloric responses from the first to the last
irrigation. Furman and Jacob (1993) first described
this phenomenon and attributed it to central adaptation mechanisms. To reduce this bias, they suggested
modifying the formulas used for quantifying the
caloric responses or changing the order of irrigations.
However, it is now clear that the underlying premise
of the order effect in bithermal caloric testing may have
been inaccurate. Lightfoot (2004) demonstrated that the
order effect was specific to ENG and was not present in
VNG. That is, the order effect is unrelated to the adaptation mechanisms and reflects the systematic change
in CRP over time. As a result, careful verification of calibration (but not necessarily recalibration) before each
irrigation can minimize or eliminate the order effect
regardless of what order the irrigations are performed.
The main advantage of performing warm irrigations first is that under certain conditions, the examiner
can interpret the caloric results without performing
the cool irrigations (BSA, 2010). See the discussion on
monothermal caloric testing below. However, there
may be a disadvantage to starting with warm irrigations. Noaksson, Schulin, Kovacsovics, and Ledin
(1998) have shown that starting with warm irrigations
results in significantly stronger responses for warm
irrigations. On the other hand, starting with cool irrigations can reduce the typical difference between warm
and cool responses.
Based on the above discussion, it is clear that the
order of irrigations recommended by ANSI (2009) and
BSA (2010) is appropriate but is not the only acceptable sequence. In fact, when bithermal caloric testing
is planned from the outset, performing cool irrigations
first may have the advantage of reducing the difference between the intensity of responses for warm and
cool temperatures (Noaksson et al., 1998). Therefore,
the examiner is free to start with either warm or cool
irrigations as long as the ears are irrigated in the same
order for each temperature.
Waiting Period Between Irrigations
The ANSI standard recommends waiting five minutes
from the end of the recording for one irrigation to the
beginning of the next irrigation (ANSI, 2009). The purpose of the wait period is to reduce residual effects of
the previous irrigation. However, the ANSI standard
does not specify what constitutes the end of recording after each irrigation. That is, it is not clear whether
the recording should be stopped after a fixed period of
time from the onset of the irrigation or should continue
until the caloric nystagmus dissipates completely.
In most patients, caloric-induced nystagmus dissipates within 3 minutes after the onset of the irrigation.
However, there is strong evidence that the temperature
gradient across the labyrinth persists much longer and,
depending on the strength of the caloric response, may
require over 10 minutes to return to its pre-irrigation
state (Barnes, 1995). The effect of this residual temperature gradient varies from one patient to another and
from one irrigation to another. Therefore, maintaining
a fixed time interval between successive irrigations
may actually increase the variability of the caloric test.
The most recent version of the BSA standard has tried
to address this issue by recommending a 7-minute
interval between the start of two consecutive irrigations with consideration for extending the interval for
patients who continue to exhibit caloric-induced nystagmus after the wait period (BSA, 2010).
Monothermal Caloric Testing
A number of studies have considered the use of monothermal caloric tests either as a replacement or as a
screening test for bithermal caloric testing (for a review,
see Enticott, Dowell, & O’Leary, 2003; Jacobson, Calder,
Shepherd, Rupp, & Newman, 1995; Murnane, Akin,
Lynn, & Cyr, 2009). The advantages of monothermal
caloric testing include shorter test time and possibly
reduced patient discomfort. However, previous studies that have compared monothermal and bithermal
caloric tests have resulted in contradictory findings.
The inconsistencies are most likely due to differences
in the irrigation parameters and test procedures.
Some studies have entirely dismissed the use of
monothermal caloric testing in clinical settings due to
its presumed low sensitivity and specificity (e.g., Keith,
Pensak, & Katbamna, 1991; Shupak, Kaminer, Gilbey,
& Tal, 2010). However, several other studies have demonstrated that under certain conditions, monothermal
caloric testing can be used as a screening test for the
bithermal caloric test (e.g., Lightfoot et al., 2009; Murnane et al., 2009; Bush, Bingcang, Chang, et al., 2013).
Yet significant disagreements remain about the other
aspects of monothermal caloric testing.
A few studies recommend using a cool temperature for monothermal testing. However, the majority
of studies have demonstrated that warm monothermal
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
