Literature DB >> 20821036

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

Manju Jayaraman1, S Ambika, Rashmin Anilkumar Gandhi, Shikha Rajesh Bassi, Priya Ravi, Parveen Sen.   

Abstract

To investigate the effect of pituitary adenoma compressing the optic chiasm on multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) responses and to compare these responses with visual field defects seen on static automated perimetry (SAP). Eight eyes of four subjects (median age, 41.50 years; interquartile range, 33-51 years) who were diagnosed with pituitary adenoma on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and seen to have a bitemporal visual field defect on standard automated perimetry (SAP), and twelve age-matched normal subjects (median age, 47.00 years; interquartile range, 34.75-51.75 years) were subjected to multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) testing. The monocular latencies and monocular amplitudes of each sector of cases were compared with the responses of normative database. The topography of the mfVEP response was compared with corresponding field defect as seen in total deviation threshold on SAP to allow a comparison with conventional subjective perimetry. The mfVEP amplitudes were reduced in the areas with visual field defect on SAP. In 6 out of 8 eyes, locations with preserved amplitudes and no visual defects showed prolonged latency. A prolonged median latency of 9.17 ms (interquartile range, 3.44-17.69 ms) in cases was seen when compared to the median latency of 1.67 ms (interquartile range, 0.94-4.17 ms) in age-matched controls with P value of 0.054. Chiasmal compression due to pituitary adenoma causes the reduction of amplitudes and prolongation of latencies of the mfVEP response. The mfVEP can be used to assess objectively the topography of the visual field in compressive optic neuropathy secondary to pituitary adenomas. It can be used in assessing the subjects whose visual field report is unreliable and prolonged median latency can be an early sign of the disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20821036     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-010-9246-x

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


  42 in total

Review 1.  Multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma.

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 21.198

2.  Comparison of objective diagnostic tests in glaucoma: Heidelberg retinal tomography and multifocal visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  C Balachandran; S L Graham; A Klistorner; I Goldberg
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  Electrophysiological assessment of optic nerve disease.

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

4.  The multifocal visual evoked potential: an objective measure of visual fields?

Authors:  William Seiple; Karen Holopigian; Colleen Clemens; Vivienne C Greenstein; Donald C Hood
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2004-12-19       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Improvement in conduction velocity after optic neuritis measured with the multifocal VEP.

Authors:  E Bo Yang; Donald C Hood; Chris Rodarte; Xian Zhang; Jeffrey G Odel; Myles M Behrens
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  The pattern-evoked potential in compression of the anterior visual pathways.

Authors:  A M Halliday; E Halliday; A Kriss; W I McDonald; J Mushin
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1976-06       Impact factor: 13.501

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

Authors:  Ken Watanabe; Kei Shinoda; Itaru Kimura; Yukihiko Mashima; Yoshihisa Oguchi; Hisao Ohde
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-11-29       Impact factor: 5.258

8.  Normative ranges and specificity of the multifocal VEP.

Authors:  Brad Fortune; Xian Zhang; Donald C Hood; Shaban Demirel; Chris A Johnson
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 9.  Approach to optic neuropathies: clinical update.

Authors:  Sashank Prasad; Nicholas J Volpe; Laura J Balcer
Journal:  Neurologist       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.398

10.  Detecting glaucomatous damage with multifocal visual evoked potentials: how can a monocular test work?

Authors:  Donald C Hood; Xian Zhang; Bryan J Winn
Journal:  J Glaucoma       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.503

View more
  12 in total

1.  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

2.  Physiological Correlates and Predictors of Functional Recovery After Chiasmal Decompression.

Authors:  Noa Raz; Atira S Bick; Alexander Klistorner; Sergey Spektor; Daniel S Reich; Tamir Ben-Hur; Netta Levin
Journal:  J Neuroophthalmol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.042

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 in optic neuritis, ischemic optic neuropathy and compressive optic neuropathy.

Authors:  Manju Jayaraman; Rashmin Anilkumar Gandhi; Priya Ravi; Parveen Sen
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.848

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.  The Application of a New Maximum Color Contrast Sensitivity Test to the Early Prediction of Chiasma Damage in Cases of Pituitary Adenoma: The Pilot Study.

Authors:  Girena Slatkeviciene; Rasa Liutkeviciene; Brigita Glebauskiene; Dalia Zaliuniene; Loresa Kriauciuniene; Giedrimantas Bernotas; Arimantas Tamasauskas
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-07-21

7.  Usefulness of intraoperative monitoring of visual evoked potentials in transsphenoidal surgery.

Authors:  Yoshinobu Kamio; Naoto Sakai; Tetsuro Sameshima; Goro Takahashi; Shinichiro Koizumi; Kenji Sugiyama; Hiroki Namba
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  The clinical value of the multi-channel PVEP and PERG in the diagnosis and management of the patient with pituitary adenoma: a case report.

Authors:  Ewelina Lachowicz; Wojciech Lubiński
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 9.  The importance of the electrophysiological tests in the early diagnosis of ganglion cells and/or optic nerve dysfunction coexisting with pituitary adenoma: an overview.

Authors:  Ewelina Lachowicz; Wojciech Lubiński
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 10.  Clinical electrophysiology of the optic nerve and retinal ganglion cells.

Authors:  Oliver R Marmoy; Suresh Viswanathan
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 3.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.