ABSTRACT
As a predominately young, physically active, and generally healthy population, service members (SMs) with vestibular dysfunction (VD) following a TBI may not be accurately represented by the current civilian reference ranges on assessments of VD. This study enrolled SMs who were referred for vestibular rehabilitation following a mild/moderate TBI. The participants self-reported VD using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) followed by evaluation of vestibular performance using computerized dynamic posturography sensory organizational test (CDP−SOT). Retrospective analysis of these outcomes comparing the study sample of SMs to the reported civilian samples revealed SMs self-reported lower VD with significantly higher balance confidence (ABC: 77.11 ± 14.61, p < 0.05) and lower dizziness (DHI: 37.75 ± 11.74, p < 0.05) than civilians. However, the SMs underperformed in performance-based evaluations compared to civilians with significantly lower CDP−SOT composite and ratio scores (COMP: 68.46 ± 13.46, p < 0.05; VIS: 81.36 ± 14.03, p < 0.01; VEST: 55.63 ± 22.28, p < 0.05; SOM: 90.46 ± 10.17, p < 0.05). Correlational analyses identified significant relationships between the ABC and CDP−SOT composite (r = 0.380, p < 0.01) and ratio scores (VIS: r = 0.266, p < 0.05; VEST: r = 0.352, p < 0.01). These results highlight the importance of recognizing and understanding nuances in assessing VD in SMs to ensure they have access to adequate care and rehabilitation prior to returning to duty.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes between active duty service members receiving generalized versus individualized vestibular rehabilitation treatment (GVRT and IVRT, respectively) for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). SETTING: An outpatient TBI rehabilitation clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-seven participants with persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI were randomly assigned to the GVRT ( n = 28) or IVRT ( n = 29) group, stratified by dizziness-related impairment severity. Forty-two participants ( n = 21 per group) completed the posttreatment evaluation and were included in analyses. DESIGN: We employed a single-site, randomized, pre-/posttest experimental design. The GVRT program consisted of eight 45-minute group-based treatment sessions and IVRT consisted of three 30-minute one-on-one treatment sessions both to be completed within 8 weeks. Group assignment was not blinded to study personnel or participants. Research evaluations were completed approximately 2 weeks prior to treatment initiation and following treatment completion. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome measures included Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) total scores, Sensory Organization Test (SOT) composite equilibrium and sensory input ratio scores, Head Shake SOT (HS-SOT) conditions 2 and 5, and horizontal and vertical Dynamic Visual Acuity. Separate mixed-effects models were used to compare clinical outcomes between the GVRT and IVRT groups. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from pre- to posttreatment on self-reported dizziness-related impairment (DHI [ F(1,41) = 16.28, P < .001]) and balance performance with and without head movement (composite equilibrium score [ F(1,41) = 16.58, P < .001, effect size [ES] = 0.43], somatosensory [ F(1,41) = 6.79, P = .013, ES = 0.26], visual [ F(1,41) = 6.49, P = .015, ES = 0.29], vestibular [ F(1,41) = 22.31, P < .001, ES = 0.55], and HS-SOT condition 5 [ F(1,38) = 23.98, P < .001, ES = 0.64]). Treatment effects did not differ between groups on any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary evidence that differences in clinical outcomes do not exist between participants receiving generalized versus individualized VR. Further research is needed to determine comparative effectiveness between these 2 treatment approaches for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI.
