- Email: [email protected]
Response to the Editor
Auris Nasus Larynx 36 (2009) 252 www.elsevier.com/locate/anl
Response to the Editor Thank you for the comments regarding our publication of ‘‘Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials of undiagnosed dizziness’’ in Auris Nasus Larynx, 2008;35:27–30. I think the following three points were emphasized in your letter.
It has been pasted 16 years since the first report for VEMP. There are many opinions for clinical usage. We hope many discussions to establish the clinical usefulness of VEMP testing.
(1) The inter- and intra-subject variability of VEMP results. Inter aural ratio indicates intra-subject (side-to-side) variability and S.D. of the ratio indicates inter-subject variability in amplitude VEMP. Mean value and S.D. was 14.8 and 10 in our study, 12.3 and 10.9 by Murofushi et al. [1], 13 and 10 by Young et al. [2], and 2 and 19 by Zapala and Brey [3]. It was considered that mean values and S.D.s did not markedly differ among these authors. We think the variability depends on the internal factors of VEMP testing. (2) We naturally monitored the sweep wave while recording VEMP, which is, as you know, important for steady recording. (3) Some authors have reported the usefulness of evaluating VEMP latency. A latency study may confirm that this analysis provides some useful information; however, this has not yet been established.
References [1] Murofushi T, Matsuzaki M, Mizuno M. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in patients with acoustic neuromas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:509–12. [2] Young YH, Huang TW, Cheng PW. Assessing the stage of Meniere’s disease using vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:815–8. [3] Zapala DA, Brey RH. Clinical experience with the vestibular evoked myogenic potential. J Am Acad Audiol 2004;15:198–215.
0385-8146/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2008.06.002
Toru Seo* Japan *Tel.: +81 798 45 6493 E-mail address: [email protected] 13 June 2008 Available online 21 July 2008
Response to the Editor Thank you for the comments regarding our publication of ‘‘Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials of undiagnosed dizziness’’ in Auris Nasus Larynx, 2008;35:27–30. I think the following three points were emphasized in your letter.
It has been pasted 16 years since the first report for VEMP. There are many opinions for clinical usage. We hope many discussions to establish the clinical usefulness of VEMP testing.
(1) The inter- and intra-subject variability of VEMP results. Inter aural ratio indicates intra-subject (side-to-side) variability and S.D. of the ratio indicates inter-subject variability in amplitude VEMP. Mean value and S.D. was 14.8 and 10 in our study, 12.3 and 10.9 by Murofushi et al. [1], 13 and 10 by Young et al. [2], and 2 and 19 by Zapala and Brey [3]. It was considered that mean values and S.D.s did not markedly differ among these authors. We think the variability depends on the internal factors of VEMP testing. (2) We naturally monitored the sweep wave while recording VEMP, which is, as you know, important for steady recording. (3) Some authors have reported the usefulness of evaluating VEMP latency. A latency study may confirm that this analysis provides some useful information; however, this has not yet been established.
References [1] Murofushi T, Matsuzaki M, Mizuno M. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in patients with acoustic neuromas. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:509–12. [2] Young YH, Huang TW, Cheng PW. Assessing the stage of Meniere’s disease using vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:815–8. [3] Zapala DA, Brey RH. Clinical experience with the vestibular evoked myogenic potential. J Am Acad Audiol 2004;15:198–215.
0385-8146/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2008.06.002
Toru Seo* Japan *Tel.: +81 798 45 6493 E-mail address: [email protected] 13 June 2008 Available online 21 July 2008