Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in children with spastic cerebral palsy and normal children with 7-12 years of age

• Main Authors: Nazila Akbarfahimi, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Nima Rezazadeh, Masoud Karimlou, Mehdi Rassafiani, Soheila Shahshahani
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2017-07-01
• Series: Auditory and Vestibular Research
• Subjects: Children; spastic cerebral palsy; vestibular evoked myogenic potentials; vestibular system
• Online Access: https://avr.tums.ac.ir/index.php/avr/article/view/233

Background and Aim: Cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) is one of the diagnostic tests used in assessing vestibular function. Two aims of this study were to investigate implications of cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential in children with spastic cerebral palsy (7-12 years), and to compare vestibular function in these children and normal children. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, myogenic potential was recorded in 31 children with spastic cerebral palsy (8 girls, 23 boys,7-12 years of age, with mean age of 8.77 years old and standard deviation of 1.52 years) and 31 normal children (13 girls, 18 boys with mean age of 8.77 years and standard deviation of 1.52 years). Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential was recorded with 500 Hz tone burst. The recorded parameters included p13 and n23 latency, p13-n23 pick to pick amplitude, and threshold. Results: Myogenic Potential was recorded in 31 normal children. They had bilateral responses. In children with cerebral palsy, 21 children showed bilateral responses, 3 children had only right-sided responses, 8 children had only left-sided responses, and two children did not show any responses. The statistical significant differences were shown between the two groups in n23, p13-n23 pick to pick amplitude, and threshold (p<0.05). Conclusion: These findings showed that cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential can be used in children with cerebral palsy. There were significant differences in myogenic potential parameters between the two groups. More studies are needed to investigate the causes of these differences.