PURPOSE: To describe a method for monitoring progression of glaucoma using the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma were divided into two groups. Group I, comprised 43 patients who had a repeat mfVEP test within 50 days (mean 0.9 +/- 0.5 months), and group II, 44 patients who had a repeat test after at least 6 months (mean 20.7 +/- 9.7 months). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained using a 60-sector pattern reversal dartboard display. Monocular and interocular analyses were performed. Data from the two visits were compared. The total number of abnormal test points with P < 5% within the visual field (total scores) and number of abnormal test points within a cluster (cluster size) were calculated. Data for group I provided a measure of test-retest variability independent of disease progression. Data for group II provided a possible measure of progression. RESULTS: The difference in the total scores for group II between visit 1 and visit 2 for the interocular and monocular comparison was significant (P < 0.05) as was the difference in cluster size for the interocular comparison (P < 0.05). Group I did not show a significant change in either total score or cluster size. CONCLUSION: The change in the total score and cluster size over time provides a possible method for assessing progression of glaucoma with the mfVEP technique.
PURPOSE: To describe a method for monitoring progression of glaucoma using the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma were divided into two groups. Group I, comprised 43 patients who had a repeat mfVEP test within 50 days (mean 0.9 +/- 0.5 months), and group II, 44 patients who had a repeat test after at least 6 months (mean 20.7 +/- 9.7 months). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained using a 60-sector pattern reversal dartboard display. Monocular and interocular analyses were performed. Data from the two visits were compared. The total number of abnormal test points with P < 5% within the visual field (total scores) and number of abnormal test points within a cluster (cluster size) were calculated. Data for group I provided a measure of test-retest variability independent of disease progression. Data for group II provided a possible measure of progression. RESULTS: The difference in the total scores for group II between visit 1 and visit 2 for the interocular and monocular comparison was significant (P < 0.05) as was the difference in cluster size for the interocular comparison (P < 0.05). Group I did not show a significant change in either total score or cluster size. CONCLUSION: The change in the total score and cluster size over time provides a possible method for assessing progression of glaucoma with the mfVEP technique.
Authors: Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein; Jeffrey G Odel; Xian Zhang; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Jenny E Hong; Candice S Chen; Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2002-12
Authors: L A Kerrigan-Baumrind; H A Quigley; M E Pease; D F Kerrigan; R S Mitchell Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.799