The Non-Concordance of Self-Reported and Performance-Based Measures of Vestibular Dysfunction in Military and Civilian Populations Following TBI.

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.

A Comparison of Generalized and Individualized Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy in a Military TBI Sample.

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.

Implementation of a Generalized Vestibular Rehabilitation Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Vestibular dysfunction is common in military populations as the result of traumatic brain injury, blast exposure, and/or repetitive acoustic insult. Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) has been proven to be an effective approach in the treatment of vestibular dysfunction. VR consists of a series of exercises prescribed on the basis of individual patient needs by a vestibular trained physical therapist (PT). A generalized approach to VR in a military setting could help widen the system capacity to take care of patients with vestibular symptoms, shorten waiting times for patients without impacting the burden on PTs. The rehabilitation team at the Warrior Recovery Center on Fort Carson, Colorado, developed a generalized approach in which a series of exercises were administered to individuals with vestibular dysfunction. The implementation of this approach was evaluated for quality improvement purposes and is presented below. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized a combined observational/survey approach to evaluate the patients' tolerance to a variety of exercises provocative of dizziness symptoms, their overall satisfaction with the intervention, the appropriateness of the allocated resources, and the providers' confidence with the treatment and its administration. Research staff members were present as observers in all therapy sessions during the 3-month implementation period and administered surveys to patients and clinical staff at pre-established time points. Descriptive analysis was performed to summarize observations and responses to surveys. Linear regression was utilized to evaluate if a reduction in the number of patient:provider interactions occurred over the course of the implementation period. RESULTS: A total of 25 therapy sessions took place during the implementation period. Each visit lasted an average of 56 minutes with 6 minutes allocated for set up, 45 minutes for intervention and 5 minutes for cleanup. The mean number of patients per session was 3 (Max 6, Min 1) with one staff member running the intervention 56% of the time and two staff members running the intervention 44% of the time. Exercise tolerance was at 99% and the need for one-on-one interactions between providers and patients was easily attained at a 3:1 patient:provider rate. Survey assessment demonstrated 100% patient satisfaction with the program and 100% provider confidence with treatment delivery. CONCLUSION: Generalized Vestibular Rehabilitation Treatment (GVRT) was successfully implemented at the Warrior Recovery Center at Fort Carson, Colorado. The individual exercises used during the interventions were challenging to patients yet well tolerated. Resource allocation was appropriate in terms of personnel, time, and equipment. Both the clinical staff and the patients felt comfortable with the therapy and subjectively found it to be effective. The project provided valuable information to clinical staff, administrators, and the organization.