Nima Pakrou1, Robert Casson, Andrew Kaines, Dinesh Selva. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Royal Adelaide Hospital, and Department of Ophthalmology, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. nimapakrou@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to compare multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) objective perimetry with Humphrey full-threshold visual field (HVF) perimetry, in the assessment of patients with optic neuritis (ON). METHODS: We assessed 16 patients with clinically diagnosed ON. A comparison was made between the HVF and mfVEP, based on the global severity indices of both tests and number and topography of significant abnormalities detected. The latency data and inter-eye asymmetry findings on the mfVEP were also evaluated. RESULTS: From a total of 128 quadrants analysed in the 16 patients (100 affected, 28 unaffected eyes), HVF perimetry identified a scotoma in 39/128 (30.5%) quadrants, all of which were in affected eyes; the mfVEP detected a scotoma in 68/128 (53.1%) quadrants using amplitude and/or asymmetry data (XV2=7.2485, P=0.0071). Latency plots on the mfVEP identified a significant latency deviation cluster in 20/25 (80%) affected eyes. Abnormalities were also detected in 4/7 (57%) unaffected eyes. The global severity indices in the affected eyes showed a high correlation between the two tests (r=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The mfVEP detected more abnormalities in patients with ON than HVF perimetry. The use of latency recordings as well as combined amplitude and asymmetry plots is advantageous and has the potential to detect abnormalities not otherwise detected on HVF perimetry.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to compare multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) objective perimetry with Humphrey full-threshold visual field (HVF) perimetry, in the assessment of patients with optic neuritis (ON). METHODS: We assessed 16 patients with clinically diagnosed ON. A comparison was made between the HVF and mfVEP, based on the global severity indices of both tests and number and topography of significant abnormalities detected. The latency data and inter-eye asymmetry findings on the mfVEP were also evaluated. RESULTS: From a total of 128 quadrants analysed in the 16 patients (100 affected, 28 unaffected eyes), HVF perimetry identified a scotoma in 39/128 (30.5%) quadrants, all of which were in affected eyes; the mfVEP detected a scotoma in 68/128 (53.1%) quadrants using amplitude and/or asymmetry data (XV2=7.2485, P=0.0071). Latency plots on the mfVEP identified a significant latency deviation cluster in 20/25 (80%) affected eyes. Abnormalities were also detected in 4/7 (57%) unaffected eyes. The global severity indices in the affected eyes showed a high correlation between the two tests (r=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The mfVEP detected more abnormalities in patients with ON than HVF perimetry. The use of latency recordings as well as combined amplitude and asymmetry plots is advantageous and has the potential to detect abnormalities not otherwise detected on HVF perimetry.
Authors: Han Cheng; Michal Laron; Jade S Schiffman; Rosa A Tang; Laura J Frishman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.799