RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of two protocols for vestibular rehabilitation in several vestibular disordes. METHODS: Twenty patients with chronic peripheral disorders of both genders (prevalence of females, with 60% of the sample) and mean age of 55 years and 9 months participated in this study. Group 1 carried out exercices based on stimulation of vertical and horizontal vestibulocular reflex, and Group 2 carried out exercices based on a protocol of personalized vestibular rehabilitation. Data analysis considered the complaint manifested during anamnesis and the clinical evolution of the patient during the execution of the exercises. The results obtained from the application of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory questionnaire (DHI) and the dizziness visual analog scale (VAS), both before and after vestibular rehabilitation, were also considered in the analysis. RESULTS: Differences were found in the values obtained in VAS and DHI (physical and functional scales and total score), in both groups. However, the comparison of the groups after rehabilitation showed that Group 2 obtained better scores than Group 1, both in VAS and DHI (functional scale and total value). CONCLUSION: Vestibular rehabilitation allowed significant improvement in otoneurological clinical profile and in self-perception of dizziness, regardless the therapeutic method used. Personalized vestibular rehabilitation was more efficient than the vestibulocular reflex stimulation protocol in improving quality of life of individuals with chronic periferal disorders.
Assuntos
Inquéritos e Questionários , Doenças Vestibulares/reabilitação , Testes de Função Vestibular , Protocolos Clínicos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento , Doenças Vestibulares/diagnósticoRESUMO
OBJETIVO: Comparar a eficácia terapêutica de dois protocolos de reabilitação vestibular em diferentes disfunções vestibulares. MÉTODOS: Participaram 20 pacientes com disfunções periféricas crônicas, de ambos os gêneros (prevalência do gênero feminino, com 60 por cento da amostra), com média de idade de 55 anos e 9 meses. O Grupo 1 realizou exercícios baseados na estimulação do reflexo vestíbulocular vertical e horizontal, e o Grupo 2 realizou exercícios baseados em um protocolo de reabilitação vestibular personalizado. A análise de dados levou em consideração a queixa durante a anamnese e a evolução clínica do paciente a partir da execução dos exercícios. Além disso, foram obtidos os resultados do questionário Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) e da escala analógica e visual de tontura (EVA), pré e pós reabilitação vestibular. RESULTADOS: Houve diferença nos valores da EVA e do DHI (escala física, funcional e no valor total), pré e pós-reabilitação vestibular, em ambos os grupos. Porém, na comparação dos dois grupos no momento pós-reabilitação, o Grupo 2 obteve melhores resultados que o Grupo 1, tanto na EVA quanto no DHI (escala funcional e no valor total). CONCLUSÃO: A reabilitação vestibular possibilitou melhora significativa do quadro otoneurológico clínico e na auto-percepção da tontura independentemente da terapêutica empregada. A reabilitação vestibular personalizada mostrou-se mais eficaz do que o protocolo de estimulação do reflexo vestibulocular na melhora da qualidade de vida de indivíduos com disfunções periféricas crônicas.
PURPOSE: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of two protocols for vestibular rehabilitation in several vestibular disordes. METHODS: Twenty patients with chronic peripheral disorders of both genders (prevalence of females, with 60 percent of the sample) and mean age of 55 years and 9 months participated in this study. Group 1 carried out exercices based on stimulation of vertical and horizontal vestibulocular reflex, and Group 2 carried out exercices based on a protocol of personalized vestibular rehabilitation. Data analysis considered the complaint manifested during anamnesis and the clinical evolution of the patient during the execution of the exercises. The results obtained from the application of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory questionnaire (DHI) and the dizziness visual analog scale (VAS), both before and after vestibular rehabilitation, were also considered in the analysis. RESULTS: Differences were found in the values obtained in VAS and DHI (physical and functional scales and total score), in both groups. However, the comparison of the groups after rehabilitation showed that Group 2 obtained better scores than Group 1, both in VAS and DHI (functional scale and total value). CONCLUSION: Vestibular rehabilitation allowed significant improvement in otoneurological clinical profile and in self-perception of dizziness, regardless the therapeutic method used. Personalized vestibular rehabilitation was more efficient than the vestibulocular reflex stimulation protocol in improving quality of life of individuals with chronic periferal disorders.
