Background: Instrumental vestibular findings in acute benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) may help characterize vestibular function beyond positional nystagmus; however, their pathological and prognostic significance remains uncertain. We evaluated video head impulse test (vHIT) and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (c-VEMP) findings relating to acute idiopathic BPPV. Methods: This retrospective observational case series included 40 adults evaluated within 72 h of symptom onset. Positional testing identified the affected semicircular canal. Patient-level vHIT gains, corrective saccades, c-VEMP latencies, raw peak-to-peak amplitudes, and interaural asymmetry ratios were summarized descriptively. Contralateral measurements provided within-patient comparisons; no independent healthy control group was included. Results: The cohort comprised 20 women and 20 men (mean age: 59.35 ± 8.31 years). Posterior, lateral, and anterior canal BPPV were diagnosed in 32 (80%), 6 (15%), and 2 (5%) patients, respectively, with right-posterior-canal involvement in 18 patients (45%). Reduced vHIT gain accompanied by corrective saccades in the affected canal trace was observed in five patients (12.5%: 3 posterior, 1 lateral, and 1 anterior). Bilateral c-VEMPs were recordable in all patients. Mean affected vs. contralateral p13 latencies were 16.41 vs. 15.93 ms, n23 latencies were 24.57 vs. 23.92 ms, and raw peak-to-peak amplitudes were 50.66 vs. 58.18 µV. These raw amplitude values could not be independently validated as electromyography-normalized measures. Conclusions: Most patients did not meet functional deficit criteria on vHIT in the affected canal traces. The c-VEMP findings describe the tested sacculocollic pathway but require established normative reference values and electromyographic amplitude normalization for categorical diagnostic interpretation. These cross-sectional observations do not imply structural canal integrity, functional reversibility, treatment efficacy, or recurrence risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D’Elia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: