Revised criteria for suspicion of non-benign positional vertigo

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most commonly diagnosed vestibular vertigo. BPPV can be diagnosed by clinical examination and its treatment is based on particle repositioning manoeuvres, and specialized equipment is not required. Therefore, most patients could be diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner. Unfortunately, not all positional vertigos are benign. Symptoms similar to those of BPPV can be caused by diseases that affect the central nervous system. It must be possible to define criteria that allow us to suspect, in a patient with symptoms of positional vertigo, the possibility of a cerebral origin ('non-benign PV'). Requests for magnetic resonance imaging must be justified by the fulfillment of these criteria. That is especially relevant in primary care, because these criteria should make possible to distinguish between patients with positional vertigo that could be treated by general practitioner and patients that need to be directed to especialized units. We propose the following revised criteria for suspected non-benign PV: (i) association with signs or symptoms of neurological disorder, (ii) nystagmus without dizziness in positional diagnostic tests, (iii) atypical nystagmus direction, (iv) poor response to therapeutic manoeuvres and (v) recurrence (confirmed by positional tests) on at least three occasions.

What is the optimal number of treatment sessions of vestibular rehabilitation?

Vestibular rehabilitation is effective and safe in patients with instability. However, there is insufficient evidence for distinguishing between efficacies of different dosage of therapies. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to verify whether there were differences between two computerised dynamic posturography (CDP) therapies of different numbers of sessions, in order to establish the optimal strategy. We conducted a prospective, comparative study of two different dosage of CDP therapy (a 5-session group and another of 10-session group) in patients with instability due to chronic unilateral peripheral vestibular disorder. We used balanced block randomisation to include 13 patients in each group. Improvement was assessed using the Dizziness Handicap Inventory and the CDP with the sensorial organisation test (SOT) and limits of stability (LOS). We found a statistically significant improvement in both groups in composite score, visual and vestibular input (SOT); and in reaction time, distance and directional control (LOS). If we compare the groups regarding these improvements, we found that 10-session group showed a greater benefit in distance covered and directional control of LOS. Since significant improvement is obtained with only five sessions, we believe this to be the optimal number of treatment sessions for most patients with chronic unilateral peripheral vestibular disorder. Nevertheless, those patients with more reduced limits of stability, and consequently greater likelihood of falling as a result of their diminished base of support, are candidates for rehabilitation protocols with a greater number of sessions.