The clinical meaning and significance of OVEMP morphology.

Abstract

Purpose: While some OVEMP recordings are morphologically straightforward, some are poor in appearance, which can create a challenge, as they often require a "second look" by another experienced assessor. Even OVEMPs in normal subjects are sometimes poorly formed, but we wondered if the morphological assessment of the OVEMP response might provide some additional diagnostic information.

Methods: A single experienced assessor evaluated the OVEMP recordings of 60 patients referred sequentially to a tertiary care centre, and categorized them as "easy to assess" (i.e. obvious to a minimally trained assessor) or "difficult to assess", often requiring a second look by another experienced assessor.

Results: In 48 patients, the results were easy to assess (regardless of the actual clinical results) while 12 were classified as "difficult". This figure reflected the rate of morphologically poor responses we found in our population of normative data.

Conclusion: Our clinical concern is that many centres have given up relying on OVEMP assessment because the morphology of the wave may be challenging to interpret. OVEMP assessment often calls for a "second look", requiring a collaboration between two experienced assessors. It seems that this feature may not be diagnostically useful and poor OVEMP morphology may present a challenge in interpretation, but this should not be used as a reason to defer OVEMP testing.