Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background/Objectives: To characterize paired-ear vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) response patterns and contralateral abnormalities in patients with MRI-confirmed unilateral vestibular schwannoma (VS). Methods: This exploratory retrospective paired-ear study included 24 patients with unilateral VS confirmed by contrast-enhanced MRI. Patients underwent pretreatment pure-tone audiometry, caloric testing, air-conducted sound cervical VEMP (ACS-cVEMP), bone-conducted vibration ocular VEMP (BCV-oVEMP), galvanic vestibular stimulation cervical VEMP (GVS-cVEMP), and GVS-oVEMP. Tumor-affected and contralateral non-tumor ears were compared using McNemar’s and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Age was compared by contralateral VEMP status using Mann–Whitney U tests. All p values were unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: Hearing loss and caloric abnormalities were more frequent in tumor-affected ears (91.7% vs. 20.8% and 62.5% vs. 8.3%, respectively; both p < 0.001). Abnormality rates were higher in tumor-affected than contralateral non-tumor ears for ACS-cVEMP (83.3% vs. 45.8%; p = 0.022), GVS-cVEMP (70.8% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.002), and GVS-oVEMP (70.8% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.002), whereas the BCV-oVEMP difference was not significant (62.5% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.092). Tumor-affected ears showed prolonged GVS-cVEMP p13 latency (median, 12.47 vs. 11.35 ms; p = 0.008) and reduced amplitude (median, 59.02 vs. 66.24 μV; p = 0.044). Patients with contralateral ACS-cVEMP abnormalities were older than those with normal responses (median, 62 vs. 45 years; p = 0.001); age did not differ significantly by contralateral GVS-VEMP status. Conclusions: In this exploratory paired-ear study, GVS-cVEMP abnormalities were more frequent in tumor-affected ears, and the observed contralateral abnormality rate was numerically lower than that for ACS-cVEMP. GVS-cVEMP may complement conventional VEMPs when contralateral abnormalities complicate interpretation. These preliminary findings require validation in larger prospective controlled studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: