Literature DB >> 17184719

Discordance between subjective perimetric visual fields and objective multifocal visual evoked potential-determined visual fields in patients with hemianopsia.

Ken Watanabe1, Kei Shinoda, Itaru Kimura, Yukihiko Mashima, Yoshihisa Oguchi, Hisao Ohde.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the concordance between subjectively and objectively acquired visual fields in patients with subjectively determined hemianopsia.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
METHODS: Ten patients, six men and four women, ranging in age from 28 to 68 years, were studied. Goldmann or Humphrey perimeters were used to obtain the subjectively determined visual fields for up to 25 degrees of eccentricity, and the VERIS Scientific System (Electro-Diagnostic Imaging, San Francisco, California, USA) was used to record multifocal visual evoked potential [VEPs] (mfVEPs) to obtain the objective visual fields. Each of the 60 black-and-white segments of the checkerboard stimulus was alternated according to a binary m sequence. The first slices of the second-order kernels were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS: In five cases, the visual field loci where the mfVEPs were within normal limits corresponded to the scotomatous areas obtained by conventional perimetry. In these discordant cases, the lesions (e.g., arteriovenous malformation) were located in the occipital lobe. Two of these cases had a complete recovery of the subjective visual field. The lesions of the concordant cases were located outside the occipital lobe (e.g., pituitary adenoma). In these cases, no visual field improvement was seen. The temporal crescent syndrome was ruled out in patients with posterior lesions by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings.
CONCLUSIONS: In some patients with occipital lesions, the subjective and objective visual field results are discordant, and some of them will show a recovery of the visual field deficits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17184719     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.10.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  7 in total

1.  Objective visual field determination in forensic ophthalmology with an optimized 4-channel multifocal VEP perimetry system: a case report of a patient with retinitis pigmentosa.

Authors:  C Kaltwasser; F K Horn; J Kremers; A Juenemann; A Bergua
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-08-14       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential (mfVEP) and Pattern-Reversal Visual Evoked Potential Changes in Patients with Visual Pathway Disorders: A Case Series.

Authors:  Daniah Alshowaeir; Con Yiannikas; Alexander Klistorner
Journal:  Neuroophthalmology       Date:  2015-08-25

3.  Using sellar region tumor's size as a predictor of psychophysical and electrophysiological perimetric visual losses: a logistic regression approach.

Authors:  Carlos Augusto Ferreira Lobão; Letícia Miquilini; Breno Simões Ribeiro da Silva; Verônica Gabriela Ribeiro da Silva; Eliza Maria da Costa Brito Lacerda; Alexandre Antônio Marques Rosa; Givago da Silva Souza
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Multifocal visual evoked potential recordings in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenoma.

Authors:  Manju Jayaraman; S Ambika; Rashmin Anilkumar Gandhi; Shikha Rajesh Bassi; Priya Ravi; Parveen Sen
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-09-04       Impact factor: 2.379

5.  Role of inter-hemispheric transfer in generating visual evoked potentials in V1-damaged brain hemispheres.

Authors:  Voyko Kavcic; Regina L Triplett; Anasuya Das; Tim Martin; Krystel R Huxlin
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 6.  Reorganization of Visual Callosal Connections Following Alterations of Retinal Input and Brain Damage.

Authors:  Laura Restani; Matteo Caleo
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2016-11-14

7.  Optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in evaluation of optic chiasm decompression.

Authors:  Pavel Poczos; Tomáš Česák; Naďa Jirásková; Markéta Macháčková; Petr Čelakovský; Jaroslav Adamkov; Filip Gabalec; Jiří Soukup; Jan Kremláček
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.996

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.