Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy for the Treatment of Vestibular Migraine, and the Impact of Traumatic Brain Injury on Outcome: A Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Vestibular migraine (VM) is a common condition; individuals experience dizziness with migraine symptoms. Vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) has been reported as an effective treatment for VM, however, evidence is limited. VM and traumatic brain injury (TBI) can co-occur, and some suggest that TBI can induce VM. There is limited evidence on the effect a history of TBI has on VRT in patients with VM. METHODS: Retrospective case series of 93 (f = 63, m = 30) participants with VM and underwent VRT (mean age 48.62; SD 15.92). Pre- and post-treatment self-reported outcome measures and functional gait assessment were extracted from the participants health records and evaluated. The impact of TBI on VRT outcome in participants with VM was analyzed. Individuals with TBI and no history of migraine (n = 40) were also extracted to act as a control. RESULTS: VRT significantly improved self-reported dizziness on the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), with a mean change of -18 points (p < 0.000) and +5 points on the functional gait assessment (FGA) (p < 0.000) in patients with VM. A history of TBI significantly impacted outcome on the DHI (p = 0.018) in patients with VM.VRT significantly improved all outcome measures for individuals with TBI, with a mean change of -16 points on the DHI (p = 0.001) and +5 points on the FGA (p < 0.000). VM presence significantly impacted outcome. CONCLUSION: VRT should be considered as a treatment option to reduce dizziness and the risk of falls in individuals with VM. TBI may negatively impact VRT outcomes in individuals with VM.

A randomised trial to assess the educational benefit of a smartphone otoscope in undergraduate medical training.

PURPOSE: Competent otoscopy is a key otolaryngology skill for a broad range of medical careers, yet undergraduate's confidence to perform otoscopy is reported as low. Smartphone otoscopes have been suggested to improve undergraduates learning of normal eardrum anatomy because unlike the traditional otoscope, the learner and educator share the same image. This study aimed to evaluate whether a smartphone otoscope could enhance medical undergraduates recognition of common ear pathology. METHODS: 52 medical students were randomised into a standard group that used a traditional otoscope and an intervention group that used a smartphone otoscope. Both groups received a short didactic presentation on the recognition of common ear pathologies and were asked to diagnose four simulated pathologies. Both groups received feedback and guidance on how to better visualise the tympanic membrane. Force response items and 5-point Likert scales loaded on an electronic platform recorded their diagnosis and their perceptions towards the otoscope. RESULTS: The smartphone-group (n = 20) had higher overall rates of correct diagnosis compared to control (n = 22) (84% vs. 39%, p = < 0.001). Only the grommet station did not show a significant improvement between the two groups (100% vs. 91%, p = 0.49). 90% (n = 20) of participants felt the smartphone otoscope was preferential for their learning. The same number expressed that they want to use it in future learning. The remainder were indifferent. CONCLUSIONS: The smartphone otoscope enabled learners to better observe and recognise middle ear pathology. This popular learning tool has the potential to accelerate the learning curve of otoscopy and therefore improve the proficiency of future doctors at recognising middle ear diseases.