The symptoms of Vestibular Neuritis (VN) are known to lessen or disappear over a much longer period of time than, say, a typical headache or migraine. I know that there are at least potential long term effects; an NCBI bookshelf entry on VN says:

The natural history of this disease is uncomplicated with complete resolution in most cases. Some can have incomplete resolution and with a study showing 15% with persistent symptoms at one year.

and also:

Two important complications associated with vestibular neuritis are benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD)... Research has found that 10 to 15% of patients with vestibular neuritis will develop BPPV in the affected ear within a few weeks.[11][12] ... One study found PPPD in 25% of patients who were followed 3 to 12 months after acute or episodic vestibular disorders.[14]

but I'm not satisfied with this description... it describes observed symptoms rather than causes inside the body. Another web page mentions hypofunction of the affected nerve, and the brain's adjustment to this hypofunction which may be difficult to undo - but in only a sentence or two, with little detail.

So, can you describe - in some detail if possible - the long-term effects of a spell of (non-HSV-induced) Vestibular Neuritis?

  • 1
    It seems like your question bounces between two things: mechanisms of this condition, and consequences/long-term effects. These things need not be particularly related in medicine (that is, one might know a mechanism, yet knowing that mechanism is not particularly useful in determining long term effects; alternatively, one could know long-term effects while having no clue whatsoever as to the mechanisms involved). Which are you looking for an answer on?
    – Bryan Krause
    Oct 8, 2021 at 21:51
  • Well, eventually, effects. But saying "there's a 15% chance of having vertigo" sounds like you're buying a lottery ticket.
    – einpoklum
    Oct 9, 2021 at 7:18
  • What exactly is wrong with that? I'm not really familiar with this condition but it seems very straightforward to have a study that shows that - you have 100 people with VN and follow them over time for a bit and find 15/100 develop vertigo - how is that not legitimate information to know? Certainly more straightforward than understanding why, especially in human patients.
    – Bryan Krause
    Oct 9, 2021 at 13:40
  • @BryanKrause: What's wrong with that is that: 1. It doesn't tell us what actually happens with the nerves and the brain in those cases, and more importantly, 2. It doesn't characterize those 15% of cases and 3. It doesn't tell us what can be done to mitigate that risk.
    – einpoklum
    Oct 9, 2021 at 13:54
  • Those would all be separate questions. It's very easy to not know any of those answers yet have plenty of data about the incidence.
    – Bryan Krause
    Oct 9, 2021 at 14:51


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.