Literature DB >> 16523232

Recording of both VEP and multifocal ERG for evaluation of unexplained visual loss electrophysiology in unexplained visual loss.

Agnes B Renner1, Ulrich Kellner, Hilmar Tillack, Hannelore Kraus, Michael H Foerster.   

Abstract

The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the relevance of both visual-evoked potentials (VEP) and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) to evaluate unexplained visual loss. Seventy-two consecutive patients (1996-2002) with visual disturbances of unknown origin underwent both VEP and mfERG (ISCEV standard). The mean age was 42.4 years (11.8-74.5) and median visual acuity 0.5 (no light perception - 1.0). Symptoms reported included visual acuity loss (n=69), visual field defects (n=11), disturbances of colour vision, light or dark adaptation (n=10). VEP and mfERG were normal in 43% (n=31). Both VEP and mfERG were pathological in 24% (n=17). In a further 18% (n=13) only the mfERG was pathological and in 15% (n=11) only the VEP was pathological. Macular dysfunction as detected with mfERG was present in 73% of 41 patients with at least one pathological test. Neuroimaging (MRI, CCT) and/or neurological examination was performed in 27/72 patients (38%), to account for unexplained visual loss, prior to the electrophysiological tests; these were normal in all patients. Electrophysiological tests revealed disturbances of the post-retinal visual pathway in only 3/27 patients. In 12/27 patients, mfERG revealed a macular disorder; in a further 12/27 patients VEP and mfERG were normal. The combined evaluation of VEP and mfERG is useful both to establish the area of dysfunction and the normality of the visual system. Electrophysiological testing prior to neuroimaging is recommended for patients where clear clinical signs of cerebral disorders are not evident. This reduces the frequency of unnecessary neuroimaging and associated radiation exposure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16523232     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-005-5362-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   2.379


  15 in total

1.  Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004 update).

Authors:  Michael F Marmor; Graham E Holder; Mathias W Seeliger; Shuichi Yamamoto
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Visual evoked potentials standard (2004).

Authors:  J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Colin Barber; Mitchell Brigell; Michael F Marmor; Alma Patrizia Tormene; Graham E Holder
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 3.  Electrophysiological assessment of optic nerve disease.

Authors:  G E Holder
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  The field topography of ERG components in man--I. The photopic luminance response.

Authors:  E E Sutter; D Tran
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  The assessment of clinical investigations: the Greenwich Grading System and its application to electrodiagnostic testing in ophthalmology.

Authors:  M C Corbett; J S Shilling; G E Holder
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  [Electrophysiologic studies according to ISCEV (International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision) standards in children under 10 years of age].

Authors:  C Jandeck; U Kellner; H Kraus; M H Foerster
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 7.  Pattern electroretinography (PERG) and an integrated approach to visual pathway diagnosis.

Authors:  G E Holder
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 21.198

8.  The clinical value of ophthalmic electrodiagnosis in children.

Authors:  R R Hidajat; D H Goode
Journal:  Australas Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.430

9.  Severe course of cutaneous melanoma associated paraneoplastic retinopathy.

Authors:  U Kellner; N Bornfeld; M H Foerster
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Evaluation of the electrodiagnostic investigation of children using the Greenwich Grading System.

Authors:  S A Woodruff; S Fraser; L C Burton; G E Holder; J J Sloper
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.775

View more
  6 in total

1.  Clinical value of electrophysiology in determining the diagnosis of visual dysfunction in neuro-ophthalmology patients.

Authors:  G H Yap; L Y Chen; R Png; J L Loo; S Tow; R Mathur; A Chia
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Malingering or simulation in ophthalmology-visual acuity.

Authors:  Ali Ihsan Incesu; Güngör Sobacı
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Current usage of electrophysiological tests in a secondary referral hospital in Korea.

Authors:  Mi Yeon Song; Ungsoo Samuel Kim
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 1.854

Review 4.  [Clinical findings and diagnostics of cone dystrophy].

Authors:  U Kellner; S Kellner
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 5.  Electrophysiological examination in uveitis: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Marilita M Moschos; Nikolaos S Gouliopoulos; Christos Kalogeropoulos
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-01-10

6.  Diagnosis of keratoconus in a young male by electrophysiological test findings: A case report.

Authors:  Weiming Yan; Yanjin Chen; Xiaohong Chen; Qian Ye; Yutong Wang; Chuan Jiang; Xiangrong Zheng; Yunpeng Wang; Meizhu Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 1.817

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.