Are postural restrictions after an Epley maneuver unnecessary? First results of a controlled study and review of the literature. Short-term efficacy of Epley's manoeuvre: a double-blind randomised trial. Efficacy of postural restriction in treating benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Posture restrictions do not interfere in the results of canalith repositioning maneuver. Effect of mastoid oscillation on the outcome of the canalith repositioning procedure. Treatment variations on the Epley maneuver for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Are postural restrictions necessary for management of posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo? Benign paroxysmal vertigo: a comparative prospective study of the efficacy of Brandt and Daroff exercises, Semont and Epley maneuver. Is it important to restrict head movement after Epley maneuver? A pilot randomized clinical trial on the relative effect of instrumental (MFMA) versus manual (HVLA) manipulation in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction. Treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: necessity of postmaneuver patient restrictions.
Postural restrictions after canalith repositioning maneuvers (CRM) for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of the posterior semicircular canal (p-BPPV) have no proven value and therefore most physicians regard them as unnecessary. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term efficacy of head and body movement limitations after a single Epley maneuver. A review of the literature was performed to assess the current level of evidence for the efficacy of postural restrictions.
                Sixty-four patients, median age 59 years (range 37-82 years), with p-BPPV, were allocated either to instructions for movement restrictions or free movements for 48 h after a single Epley maneuver. The minimization method was used for allocation to treatment. This procedure 'minimizes' the differences in the distribution of pre-specified prognostic factors (e.g. sex and age) between the two groups of treatment. Minimization was preferred over randomization which is not as effective in balancing baseline characteristics when the number of participants is small. Outcome was assessed by physician and patient reported measures (Dix-Hallpike test, subjective vertigo intensity in a 10-point scale, patient's assessment of improvement) within 1 week after treatment by an independent investigator. The level of statistical significance was 0.05.
                More patients with movement restrictions reported a subjective improvement after treatment (p=0.007). Ninety percent of patients with movement restrictions and 74.2% of patients with free movements had a negative follow up Dix-Hallpike test but the difference was not significant (p=0.108). The mean pre-treatment vertigo intensity was reduced from 6.07 and 5.97 to 1.18 and 2.86, respectively but the difference was not significant (p=0.122).
                Postural restrictions do not increase the efficacy of the canal-repositioning maneuver despite the fact that patients report a subjective improvement after post-procedural instructions. In the review of the literature, all studies except one conclude that postural restrictions are unnecessary. However, a number of methodological issues such as inadequate sample size are not addressed and more conclusive evidence is required. Based on current evidence, the use of postural restrictions after the canal-repositioning maneuver is unjustified. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of the posterior canal (PC-BPPV) is a common vestibular disorder and can be easily treated with Epley's manoeuvre. Thus far, the short-term efficacy of Epley's manoeuvre for treatment of PC-BPPV is unknown.
                To evaluate the efficacy of Epley's manoeuvre for treatment of PC-BPPV 24 h after applying the manoeuvre.
                The short-term efficacy of Epley's manoeuvre was compared with a sham procedure in 66 patients with PC-BPPV by using a double-blind randomised study design.
                24 h after treatment, 28 of 35 (80%) patients in the Epley's manoeuvre group had neither vertigo nor nystagmus on positional testing compared with 3 of 31 (10%) patients in the sham group (p<0.001).
                Epley's manoeuvre is shown to resolve PC-BPPV both effectively and rapidly. To investigate the efficacy of postural restriction after canalith repositioning in treating benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV).
                Prospective trial of patients with postural restriction vs those without postural restriction after treatment.
                Patients with classic BPPV and with BPPV without nystagmus were treated using the modified Epley canalith repositioning procedure. Patients were randomly separated into 2 groups. The first group was instructed to wear a cervical collar and to maintain an upright head position for 2 days. The second group had no motion restriction. After 5 days, the patients were followed up and evaluated using the Dix-Hallpike test.
                In the first group, 56 of 62 ears healed after the first maneuver, and the remaining ears healed after the second. In the second group, 45 of 57 ears healed after the first maneuver, 6 after the second, and 5 (with subsequent postural restriction) after the third (1 ear did not improve). Five patients in the first group and 3 patients in the second group had BPPV without nystagmus; all of these patients healed after a single maneuver. The difference between the 2 groups in the number of maneuvers required for treatment was statistically significant (P<.05). The number of patients who required a third maneuver was significantly higher in the second group (P<.05).
                Postural restriction enhances the therapeutic effect of canalith repositioning in the treatment of posterior semicircular canal BPPV. The long-term efficacy of postural restriction in preventing BPPV recurrence has not been demonstrated. Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) is a frequent cause of dizziness and despite of the excellent results with its treatment, there is some controversy about management.
                To assess the efficacy of Epley Maneuver with and without post-maneuver restrictions.
                Prospective randomized.
                Fifty patients presenting BPPV of the posterior semicircular canal, treated with Epley Maneuver and divided into two groups: study group--23 patients--with post-maneuver restrictions, and control group--27 patients--without post-maneuver restrictions.
                No significant difference was found between the studied and the control group.
                Post-maneuver restrictions do not influence the efficacy of Epley Maneuver for BPPV management. The canalith repositioning procedure (CRP), as described by Epley, is a well-established method of treatment for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Debate exists as to whether simultaneous application of a mastoid oscillator confers any added benefit. The aim of this study was to examine this question.
                Prospective randomized study.
                Eighty-four subjects with unilateral posterior canal BPPV were randomized into two groups. The oscillator group was treated by CRP with mastoid oscillation and the nonoscillator group was treated by CRP alone. Positive outcome was regarded as complete resolution of symptoms and a negative Dix-Hallpike's test after a 4 to 6 week follow-up period.
                Five patients were lost to follow-up. Twenty-eight (72%) patients from the oscillator group and 26 (65%) patients from the nonoscillator group had a positive outcome. This difference was not significant (chi = 0.17, P =.68)
                For the treatment of posterior canal BPPV, concurrent mastoid oscillation with CRP does not significantly alter the short-term outcome. To determine if using more head rotation during the Epley maneuver or specific posttreatment instructions for sleeping position would affect treatment effectiveness, compared with the usual maneuver without extra instructions.
                Patients with unilateral benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of the posterior semicircular canal were randomized to a standard Epley maneuver group, a group that received an additional 45 degrees head rotation during the maneuver (Augmented Epley), and a group that received instructions about sleeping position after treatment.
                Posttests from 1 week to 6 months showed no differences in vertigo intensity or frequency or responses to the Dix-Hallpike maneuver. All groups showed significant decreases in vertigo and Dix-Hallpike responses. Some subjects in each group had abnormal pretreatment scores on computerized dynamic posturography. Those subjects in the Augmented Epley group who had abnormal pretreatment posturography scores had significantly better posttreatment scores than those subjects in the Home Instruction group who had abnormal pretreatment scores. All subjects with abnormal responses, however, showed improvement.
                Although clinicians continue to give patients home instructions and to use additional head rotation during the maneuver, these variations are not essential for achieving improvement in symptoms. An important component of management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) has been the application of postural restrictions after use of a canalith repositioning maneuver (CRM) to prevent the return of otolithic debris into the posterior semicircular canal (PSC). This study was designed to explore the effectiveness of postural restrictions in patients with BPPV caused by otolithic debris in the PSC.
                Seventy-four adult patients with unilateral PSC BPPV were enrolled into this study. All patients were managed with a CRM--either the modified Epley maneuver or the Semont maneuver. The patients were divided randomly into 2 groups: group A, with postural restrictions, and group B, without postural restrictions. The statistical analysis was performed with X2 tests and t-tests.
                No patients in either group showed positional nystagmus in the posttreatment evaluation under infrared videonystagmoscopy. No patients had symptoms of vertigo after the therapy. The results of follow-up vestibular tests were normal in both groups.
                In our experience, postural restrictions do not enhance the beneficial effect of the CRMs. They do not seem to have any protective role and therefore should not be recommended as an adjunct to the treatment of PSC BPPV. We performed a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of three physical treatments for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: Brandt & Daroff habituation exercises, the Semont manoevre (intended as a statoconia-detachment maneuver), and the Epley maneuver (intended as a statoconia-repositioning maneuver). A total of 106 BPPV patients were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups, and responses were evaluated one week, one month and three months after the initial treatment. At the one-week follow-up, similar cure rates were obtained with the Semont and Epley maneuver (74% and 71% respectively), both cure rates being significantly higher than that obtained with Brandt & Daroff exercises (24%). By the three-month follow-up, the cure rate obtained with the Epley maneuver was higher (93%) than that obtained with the Semont maneuver (77%), though both remained higher than that obtained with the Brandt & Daroff maneuver (62%). However, the proportion of initially responding patients showing subsequent relapse was lower among patients treated by the Semont maneuver than among patients treated by the Epley maneuver. In view of these findings, we propose a treatment algorithm for patients with BPPV. The effectiveness of postmaneuver postural restrictions is controversial in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
                To verify the role of postural restrictions in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of posterior canal, submitted to a single Epley maneuver.
                clinical prospective.
                Fifty eight patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of posterior canal were randomly divided in two groups following the application of a unique Epley maneuver. The patients from group 1 were informed to restrict their head movements and to use a cervical collar and group 2 patients were not informed about these postmaneuver restrictions. The patients from both groups were reevaluated one week after Epley maneuver, regarding the presence of symptoms and positional nystagmus.
                One week after Epley maneuver 82.1% of the patients from group 1 and 73.3% from group 2 didn't present positional nystagmus (p=0.421). There was a clinical improvement in 96.0% of the patients from group 1 and in 94.0% from group 2 (p=0.781).
                The use of postural restrictions in patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of posterior canal didn't interfere in their clinical evaluation, one week after a unique Epley maneuver. To determine the relative effect of instrument-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in comparison with traditional manual-delivered thrust cervical manipulations in the treatment of cervical spine dysfunction.
                Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial.
                Outpatient chiropractic clinic, Technikon Natal, South Africa.
                Thirty patients diagnosed with neck pain and restricted cervical spine range of motion without complicating pathosis for at least 1 month were included in the study.
                The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Those in one group received mechanical force, manually assisted (MFMA) manipulation to the cervical spine, delivered by means of a hand-held instrument (Activator II Adjusting Instrument). Those in the other group received specific contact high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) manipulation consisting of standard Diversified rotary/lateral break techniques to the cervical spine. Each group received only the specific therapeutic intervention, no other treatment modalities or interventions (including medication) being used, until asymptomatic status was achieved or a maximum of 8 treatments had been received. Main Outcome Measures: Both treatment groups were assessed through use of subjective (Numerical Pain Rating Scale 101, McGill Short-Form Pain Questionnaire, and Neck Disability Index) and objective (goniometer cervical range of motion) measurement parameters at specific intervals during the treatment period and at 1-month follow-up. The data were assessed through use of 2-tailed nonparametric paired and unpaired analysis, descriptive statistics, and power analysis of the data.
                The results indicate that both treatment methods had a positive effect on the subjective and objective clinical outcome measures, no significant difference being observed between the 2 groups (P < .025). The subjective data from all 3 questionnaires showed statistically significant changes from initial to final consultations as well as from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up (P < .025). The objective range of motion measures showed statistically significant changes in the MFMA group for left and right rotation and left and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to final consultations and for right rotation and right lateral flexion from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up. The HVLA group showed only the change in left rotation from initial to final consultations and from initial consultation to 1-month follow-up to be statistically significant.
                The results of this clinical trial indicate that both instrumental (MFMA) manipulation and manual (HVLA) manipulation have beneficial effects associated with reducing pain and disability and improving cervical range of motion in this patient population. A randomized, controlled clinical trial in a similar patient base with a larger sample size is necessary to verify the clinical relevance of these findings. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of vertigo, resulting from migration of otoconia into the semicircular canals. Several treatment methods involving positioning maneuvers that return the otoconia to the utricle have been described. Following treatment, most patients are provided with a variety of activity restrictions. Previous studies suggest that, overall, BPPV treatment may be successful without these restrictions. The purpose of this study was to determine the necessity of postmaneuver restrictions using an experimental and control group with participants matched for age, gender, involved ear, and symptoms. A canalith repositioning maneuver was used to treat the BPPV. During postmaneuver instruction, the 21 participants assigned to the restricted group were provided with typical activity restrictions. Twenty-one participants assigned to the nonrestricted group were given no postmaneuver restrictions. Only one participant in the restricted group and two participants in the nonrestricted group were not clear at the one-week follow-up appointment. Results indicated that postmaneuver restrictions do not improve treatment efficacy.
There is evidence supporting a statistically significant effect of post-Epley postural restrictions in comparison to the Epley manoeuvre alone. However, it important to note that this statistically significant effect only highlights a small improvement in treatment efficacy. An Epley manoeuvre alone is effective in just under 80% of patients with typical BPPV. The additional intervention of postural restrictions has a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10. The addition of postural restrictions does not expose the majority of patients to risk of harm, does not pose a major inconvenience, and can be routinely discussed and advised. Specific patients who experience discomfort due to wearing a cervical collar and inconvenience in sleeping upright may be treated with the Epley manoeuvre alone and still expect to be cured in most instances.
There is insufficient evidence to support the routine application of mastoid oscillation during the Epley manoeuvre, or additional steps in an 'augmented' Epley manoeuvre. Neither treatment is associated with adverse outcomes. Further studies should employ a rigorous randomisation technique, blinded outcome assessment, a post-treatment Dix-Hallpike test as an outcome measure and longer-term follow-up of patients.