Can you offer discuss protocol for reporting VNG Results? What types of conclusions are appropriate for the Audiologist to make, and how should they be written?
The report should include a description of test results and their clinical significance. It may also include referrals to other professionals or recommendations for further testing, such as rotation testing or platform posturography. The report does not include conclusions about etiology. An appropriate statement might be, "Saccade results revealed a significantly delayed latency in each direction, which is consistent with a central lesion." Subjective responses from the patient may also be included as appropriate. For example, "Caloric responses were bilaterally weak, although the patient subjectively reported a 'slow spinning sensation' during the test. A bilateral caloric weakness is a non-localizing finding." A statement (or numbered list) of recommendations and/or referrals is a good way to end the report.
Examples of definitive peripheral findings include unilateral caloric weakness, a positive Dix Hallpike response, and a positive fistula test. Definitive central findings include saccade abnormalities, tracking and OPK abnormalities, gaze nystagmus (with vision), and failure of fixation suppression. Many abnormalities are simply non-localizing, meaning that they could be caused by either a peripheral or a central lesion. Examples of non-localizing findings include positional or spontaneous nystagmus, directional preponderance or gain asymmetry, and bilateral caloric weakness.
Amanda Cerka Mroz received her B.A. in Communicative Disorders from the University of Northern Iowa and her M.A. in Audiology from The University of Memphis. She joined GN Otometrics in January 2007 as a Professional Trainer. In this role, she develops educational materials and programs, collaborates with product managers, and provides audiological support for customers.