RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effectiveness of optokinetic stimulation (OKS) for improving symptoms and function in patients with vestibular and balance disorders. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS, Web of Science (WOS), CINAHL Complete, and PEDro databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with vestibular and balance disorders and compared the effects of OKS versus other interventions or no intervention on subjective or objective functional outcomes. Data were analysed by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were selected including 468 patients, 177 of whom received OKS. There were no significant differences in scores on the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (SMD = 0.02; 95% CI - 0.18 to 0.23; p = 0.83) or the visual analogue scale (VAS) for vertigo (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI - 1.25 to 1.58; p = 0.82). However, there were statistically significant differences in the timed up and go (TUG) test, with a large effect (SMD = - 1.13; 95% CI -2 to - 0.28; p = 0.009), and in the sensory organization test (SOT), with a medium effect (SMD = - 0.7; 95% CI - 1.21 to - 0.19; p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis showed significant effects of OKS on VAS (p = 0.017), TUG (p = 0.009) and SOT (p = 0.001) only in patients with balance disorders without vestibular disease (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: OKS may improve dizziness intensity measured with VAS or dynamic balance measured whit TUG and SOT in patients with balance disorders not due to vestibular disease. The quality of the evidence was low or very low due to the small number of included studies. PROSPERO REGISTRY NUMBER: CRD42023445024.
RESUMO
(1) Objective: To determine the effect of a directed vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) program with manual therapy (MT) on dizziness-related disability and imbalance symptoms among patients with peripheral unilateral vestibular dysfunction. (2) Methods: Eighty patients (54.75 ± 1.34 years) were allocated either to a control group (n = 40), who underwent a directed VRT program, or to an experimental group (n = 40), who received the same program plus MT once a week/4 weeks. We assessed their level of disability (Dizziness Handicap Inventory, DHI), balance confidence (the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale-16 items), postural balance (resistive multisensor platform), and the frequency and intensity of dizziness symptoms (visual analog scale). (3) Results: Post-intervention between-group improvements were observed regarding DHI total score and intensity in the experimental group (p < 0.001), as well as four weeks later. Six months after, the experimental group exhibited improvements in the center of pressure velocity with eyes open (p = 0.019), DHI total score (p = 0.001) and subscales (all p < 0.05), and intensity (p = 0.003) and frequency (p = 0.010) of dizziness. Balance confidence improvements were observed 1 month (p = 0.035) and 6 months (p = 0.038) post-intervention. (4) Conclusions: Directed VRT plus MT is a safe and beneficial intervention that speeds up recovery for patients suffering from dizziness and instability derived from unilateral vestibular dysfunction.
