Research has shown that performing specific body-positioning movements
at home could help alleviate the symptoms of a common contributor
of dizziness that results from a build-up of crystals in the inner
ear. Medical studies revealed that a technique referred to as the
modified Epley procedure (MEP) works more effectively on "benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo" than another technique known
as Semont maneuver (MSM).
Based on the results from these studies, researchers are recommending
MEP as the foremost self-treatment technique to achieving quick
relief from vertigo.
Comparison Study Between MEP and MSM for
Treatment of Vertigo
-
70 subjects with vertigo were selected at random to try MEP
or MSM to alleviate their symptoms
-
The subjects were asked to repeat the maneuvers of the treatments
three times a day until their vertigo symptoms didn't last more
than 24 hours
The MEP method
-
The patient begins by sitting on a bed with their head tilted
slightly toward the affected ear
-
Using a pillow for shoulder support, the patient quickly reclines
to their back
-
After 30 seconds pass, the patient then moves their head to
the right 90 degrees for an additional 30 seconds
-
Finally, the head and body are turned another 90 degrees to
the right for 30 more seconds before returning to a sitting
position
The MSM Method
-
The patient begins by sitting on a bed and turning their head
slightly in the direction of the unaffected ear
-
The patient then quickly drops to the side of the body with
the affected ear for 30 seconds
-
The patient then quickly switches to the opposite side of the
body, without stopping for another 30 seconds before returning
to a sitting position
Results of the Study
-
After administering the treatment for one week, the participants
following the MEP method no longer experienced symptoms of vertigo
-
The group using the MSM method were successful with their method
the 58 percent of the time
-
The number one reason cited for failure of the MSM method was
applying the method incorrectly
Neurology
July 13, 2004;63(1):150-2
| 