The primary goal of this research is to evaluate the efficacy of traditional manual canalith repositioning procedures (CRP) to that of automated multi-axial repositioning chair (TRV). A total of 37 BPPV positive patie...The primary goal of this research is to evaluate the efficacy of traditional manual canalith repositioning procedures (CRP) to that of automated multi-axial repositioning chair (TRV). A total of 37 BPPV positive patients were distributed into two groups. The first group consisted of 20 patients, 10 under 50 years old (young group) and 10 over 50 years old (old group), who received TRV chair treatment, whereas the remaining 17 patients, 7 under 50 years old (young group) and 10 over 50 years old (old group) received CRP treatment. The DHI and VAS questionnaires were given to the patients before and after treatment, and the results were compared. The average VAS score for TRV patients was 84.5% (young group) and 77.5% (old group). These patients’ DHI results were as follows: for young patients, 10% had a mild handicap, 80% had a moderate handicap, and 10% had a severe handicap, while for the elderly, 40% had a mild handicap, 40% had a moderate handicap, and 20% had a severe handicap. The results improved significantly after the first treatment session. Old patients had a VAS of 28%, 30% had a mild handicap and only 10% had a moderate handicap. However, only 43% of the young group and 30% of the old group who underwent standard CRP suffered from mild handicap and had a VAS of 20% and 34.3% successively. The third session revealed that all patients in the TRV chair group had no handicap, whereas the CRP patients indicated that they still had a mild handicap. Upon analyzing the results, both treatment methods revealed the same efficacy in treating single canal BPPV. However, TRV chair appeared to be superior to traditional CRP in treating multi-canal BPPV.展开更多
文摘The primary goal of this research is to evaluate the efficacy of traditional manual canalith repositioning procedures (CRP) to that of automated multi-axial repositioning chair (TRV). A total of 37 BPPV positive patients were distributed into two groups. The first group consisted of 20 patients, 10 under 50 years old (young group) and 10 over 50 years old (old group), who received TRV chair treatment, whereas the remaining 17 patients, 7 under 50 years old (young group) and 10 over 50 years old (old group) received CRP treatment. The DHI and VAS questionnaires were given to the patients before and after treatment, and the results were compared. The average VAS score for TRV patients was 84.5% (young group) and 77.5% (old group). These patients’ DHI results were as follows: for young patients, 10% had a mild handicap, 80% had a moderate handicap, and 10% had a severe handicap, while for the elderly, 40% had a mild handicap, 40% had a moderate handicap, and 20% had a severe handicap. The results improved significantly after the first treatment session. Old patients had a VAS of 28%, 30% had a mild handicap and only 10% had a moderate handicap. However, only 43% of the young group and 30% of the old group who underwent standard CRP suffered from mild handicap and had a VAS of 20% and 34.3% successively. The third session revealed that all patients in the TRV chair group had no handicap, whereas the CRP patients indicated that they still had a mild handicap. Upon analyzing the results, both treatment methods revealed the same efficacy in treating single canal BPPV. However, TRV chair appeared to be superior to traditional CRP in treating multi-canal BPPV.
