Hareket Hastalığı Olan Bireylerde Sübjektif Denge Değerlendirmesi ve Yaşam Kalitesinin İncelenmesi

Öz

ÖZ Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, hareket hastalığı olan bireyleri subjektif denge testleri ile değerlendirmek ve yaşam kalitelerini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma grubuna 18-50 yaş aralığında hareket hastalığı öyküsü olan, işitmesi normal ve hareket hastalığı dışında kronik denge bozukluğu olmayan 24 birey (2E, 22K yaş ortalaması 30,75 ±7), kontrol grubuna ise aynı şartları sağlayan ve hareket hastalığı öyküsü olmayan 23 birey (3E, 20K yaş ortalaması 31,34 ± 7) dâhil edildi. Katılımcılara Graybiel ölçeği uygulandı ve yolculuk esnasında oluşabilecek semptomları bir ila on arasında puanlamaları istendi. Sübjektif denge değerlendirmesi için Romberg, Fukuda, Tandem duruş testleri ile Mini BESTesti uygulandı ve hayat kalitelerini değerlendirmek için SF-36 ölçeği uygulandı. Çalışma grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında fark analizinden sonra, test sonuçları arasında korelasyon analizi uygulandı. Bulgular: Graybiel ölçek puanlarında, yolculuk esnasındaki semptomlardan “bulanık görme” dışında tüm semptom puanlarında, Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) sonuçlarında ve SF-36 ölçeğin fiziksel fonksiyon alt alanında gruplar arasında anlamlı fark elde edildi (p<0,05). Romberg, fukuda ve tandem duruş testlerinde her iki grupta da patolojik bulgu gözlenmedi. Ayrıca yolculuk esnasında görülen semptom puanları ve Graybiel ölçeği ile Mini BESTest sonuçları arasında negatif yönlü anlamlı korelasyon olduğu görüldü. Sonuç: Sübjektif denge değerlendirmelerinin sonuçlarında hareket hastalığı olan bireylerin performansının sağlıklı bireylere göre daha kötü olduğu ve bu bireylerin yaşam kalitelerinin daha fazla etkilendiğini göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hareket Hastalığı
• MiniBESTest
• Vestibüler Hastalık

Investigation of Subjective Balance Assessment and Quality of Life of İndividuals with Motion Sickness

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life of individuals with motion sickness (MS) and to perform a balance examination with subjective vestibular tests. Material and Method: The study group included 24 individuals (2M, 22F) with a mean age of 30.75 ±7 years (range, 18-50 years) with a history of MS, normal hearing and no chronic balance disorder other than MS. A control group was formed of 23 age-matched individuals (3M, 20F) with no history of MS and who met the same other conditions. The Graybiel scale was applied to all the participants and they were asked to rate the symptoms that may occur during a journey on a scale of one to ten. The Romberg, Fukuda, Tandem stance tests, Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and SF-36 scale were then applied. Differences between the study group and the control group were determined and correlation analysis was applied to the test results. Results: A significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the Graybiel scale scores and all symptom scores (p<0.05). No pathological findings were observed in any of the participants in the Romberg, Fukuda and Tandem stance tests. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the Mini BESTest (p<0.05). In the SF-36, there were significant differences only in the physical functioning subscale (p<0.05). A significant negative correlation was determined between the scores of symptoms seen during a journey and the Graybiel scale and Mini BESTest results. Conclusion: The results of the subjective balance evaluations demonstrated that the performance of individuals with motion sickness was worse and their quality of life was affected more than healthy individuals.

Keywords

• Motion Sickness
• MiniBESTest
• Vestibular Disorders

References

1. 1. Koch A, Cascorbi I, Westhofen M, Dafotakis M, Klapa S, Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP. The Neurophysiology and Treatment of Motion Sickness. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2018; 115(41):687-96.
2. 2. Krueger WW. Controlling motion sickness and spatial disorientation and enhancing vestibular rehabilitation with a user-worn see-through display. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 Suppl 2(0 2):S17-35.
3. 3. Oman CM. Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1990; 68(2):294-303.
4. 4. Bowins B. Motion sickness: a negative reinforcement model. Brain Res Bull 2010; 81(1):7-11.
5. 5. Shahal B, Nachum Z, Spitzer O, Ben‐David J, Duchman H, Podoshin L, Shupak A. Computerized dynamic posturography and seasickness susceptibility. The Laryngoscope 1999; 109(12): 1996-2000.
6. 6. Gordon CR, Ben-Aryeh H, Spitzer O, I Doweck, A Gonen, Y Melamed, A Shupak. Seasickness susceptibility, personality factors, and salivation. Aviat Space Environ Med 1994; 65(7):610-14.
7. 7. Kennedy RS, Fowlkes JE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG. Use of a motion sickness history questionnaire for prediction of simulator sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 1992; 63(7):588-93.
8. 8. Graybiel A, Wood CD, Miller EF, Cramer DB. Diagnostic criteria for grading the severity of acute motion sickness. Aerosp Med 1968; 39(5):453-5.

9. 9. Doweck I, Gordon CR, Shlitner AA, Spitzer O, Gonen A, Binah O, Shupak A. Alterations in R-R variability associated with experimental motion sickness. J Auton Nerv Syst 1997; 67(1-2):31-7.
10. 10. Eversmann T, Gottsmann M, Uhlich E, Ulbrecht G, von Werder K, Scriba PC. Increased secretion of growth hormone, prolactin, antidiuretic hormone, and cortisol induced by the stress of motion sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 1978; 49(1): 53-7.
11. 11. Fowler CG, Sweet A, Steffel E. Effects of motion sickness severity on the vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25(9):814-22.
12. 12. Xie SJ, Chen W, Jia HB, Wang ZJ, Yao Q, Jiang YY. Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and motion sickness susceptibility. Aviat Space Environ Med 2012; 83(1):14-8.
13. 13. Buyuklu F, Tarhan E, Ozluoglu L. Vestibular functions in motion sickness susceptible individuals. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 266(9):1365-71.
14. 14. Bosser G, Caillet G, Gauchard G, Marçon F, Perrin P. Relation between motion sickness susceptibility and vasovagal syncope susceptibility. Brain Res Bull 2006; 68(4):217-26.
15. 15. Kaplan J, Ventura J, Bakshi A, Pierobon A, Lackner JR, DiZio P. The influencem of sleep deprivation and oscillating motion on sleepiness, motion sickness, and cognitive and motor performance. Auton Neurosci 2017; 202:86-96.
16. 16. Reason J.T, Brand J.J. Motion sickness. Academic press, 1975.
17. 17. Brandt, T. Vertigo: its multisensory syndromes. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
18. 18. Göktaş A, Çolak F.D, Kar İ, Ekici G. Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mini-BESTest Balance Scale in Patients with Stroke. Turkish Journal of Neurology/Turk Noroloji Dergisi 2020; 26 (4): 303-10.
19. 19. West E, Jonsson SW. Health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis in Northern Sweden: a comparison between patients with early RA, patients with medium-term disease and controls, using SF-36. Clin Rheumatol 2005; 24(2):117-22.
20. 20. Leung AK, Hon KL. Motion sickness: an overview. Drugs Context 2019; 13:8-9.
21. 21. Irmak T, Pool DM, Happee R. Objective and subjective responses to motion sickness: the group and the individual. Exp Brain Res 2021; 239(2):515-31.
22. 22. Gupta, V. K. Motion sickness is linked to nystagmus-related trigeminal brain stem input: a new hypothesis. Medical hypotheses 2005; 64(6): 1177-81.
23. 23. Bertolini G, Straumann D. Moving in a Moving World: A Review on Vestibular Motion Sickness. Front Neurol 2016; 15:7-14.
24. 24. ME Hoffer, K Gottshall, RD Kopke, P Weisskopf, R Moore, KA Allen, D Wester. Vestibular testing abnormalities in individuals with motion sickness. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24(4):633-6.
25. 25. Joshi S, Ambolkar A. Assessment of Balance in Individuals with and without Motion Sickness: A Comparative Study. J Phys Med Rehabil Disabil 2020; 6:056-2.
26. 26. Golding J.F, Rafiq A, Keshavarz B. Predicting individual susceptibility to visually induced motion sickness by questionnaire. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2021; 2:576871.