中国卒中杂志 ›› 2013, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (05): 346-350.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

前庭中枢性及周围性眩晕患者视频眼震图参数特点分析

孙小英1,赵性泉2,鞠奕2   

  1. 1100123 北京
    北京市民航总医院神经内科
    2首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院神经内科
  • 收稿日期:2013-01-15 出版日期:2013-05-20 发布日期:2013-05-20
  • 通讯作者: 鞠奕 juyi1226@163.com

Analysis on Videonystagmography Parameters of Vestibular Central and Peripheral Vertigo Patients

  1. *Department of Neurology, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Beijing 100123, China
  • Received:2013-01-15 Online:2013-05-20 Published:2013-05-20

摘要:

目的 探讨前庭中枢性眩晕和前庭周围性眩晕患者视频眼震图(videonystagmography,VNG)的参数特点。 方法 收集2011年3~12月首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院神经内科住院的69例后循环缺血所致前庭中枢性眩晕患者和眩晕会诊中心就诊的108例前庭周围性眩晕(梅尼埃病12例、良性阵发性位置性眩晕96例)患者的临床资料,分析并比较其VNG参数特点和临床特征。 结果 69例前庭中枢性眩晕患者和108例前庭周围性眩晕患者相比,临床特点:男性多见(P<0.001),年龄更大(P=0.009),病程更短(P<0.001),更多出现视物成双(P<0.001)、偏身麻木无力(P<0.001)、言语不利(P<0.001)等症状,较少出现耳蜗症状(P=0.021),眩晕持续时间更长(P<0.001),发病多与体位改变无关(P<0.001);VNG参数特点:视跟踪异常(40.6% vs 0.9%,P<0.001)、定标试验异常(13.0% vs 0.0%,P<0.001)、视动试验异常(10.1% vs 0.0%,P=0.003)、凝视试验异常(10.1% vs 0.0%,P=0.003)、自发性眼震(8.7% vs 0.0%,P=0.007)或位置性眼震(8.7% vs 0.0%,P=0.007)发生比例前庭中枢性眩晕组高于前庭周围性眩晕组;而变位试验阳性(14.5% vs 74.1%,P<0.001)前庭中枢性眩晕组低于前庭周围性眩晕组。 结论 VNG参数特点能客观地反映前庭中枢性眩晕和前庭周围性眩晕患者的眼震情况,结合临床特征有助于前庭系统性眩晕的定位诊断。

文章导读: 本研究通过不同组合的视频眼震图参数特点初步区分前庭中枢性和周围性眩晕,有利于视频眼震图推广应用于临床。

关键词: 视频眼震图; 眩晕; 前庭疾病

Abstract:

Objective To analyze the characteristics of videonystagmography(VNG) parameters of vestibular central and peripheral vertigo patients. Methods Data on clinical manifestations and parameters of VNG were collected from 69 cases of vestibular central vertigo and 108 cases of vestibular peripheral vertigo, and then these data were analyzed and compared respectively. Results Compared with patients with vestibular peripheral vertigo, those with vestibular central vertigo were more common in male(P<0.001), older(P=0.009), shorter in course(P<0.001). The symptoms of diplopia(P<0.001), hemianesthesia weakness(P<0.001), slurred speech(P<0.001) were more often in patients with vestibular central vertigo. And cochlear symptoms(P=0.021) were more frequent in patients with vestibular peripheral vertigo. The duration of vertigo attack of vestibular central vertigo was longer(P<0.001). The onset of vestibular central vertigo was more related to body position(P<0.001). As compared with patients with vestibular peripheral vertigo, those with vestibular central vertigo demonstrated more abnormal in eye tracking test(40.6% vs 0.9%, P<0.001), calibration test(13.0% vs 0.0%, P<0.001), optokinetic test(10.1% vs 0.0%, P=0.003), gaze test(10.1% vs 0.0%, P=0.003), spontaneous nystagmus(8.7% vs 0.0%, P=0.007) or positional nystagmus(8.7% vs 0.0%, P=0.007). And positive positioning test was more common in patients with vestibular peripheral vertigo(14.5% vs 74.1%, P<0.001). Conclusion The features of VNG parameters are objective responses of nystagmus in vestibular vertigo patients. Combined with clinical features, they could help us distinguish vestibular central and peripheral vertigo.

Key words: Videonystagmography; Vertigo; Vestibular disease