PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical use of the large-field pattern electroretinogram (PERG) as an adjunct test to the International-standard PERG in an unselected sequential cohort of patients referred for routine electrophysiologic assessment. METHODS: Pattern electroretinograms to both 15° × 11° (International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision Standard) and 30° × 22° (large field) checkerboard field sizes were recorded in 277 consecutive electrophysiology patients, aged 10-79 years. Most patients had additional tests including full-field electroretinogram, electrooculogram, multifocal electroretinograms, or cortical visual evoked potential. Patient data were compared with data from 27 control subjects. RESULTS: Satisfactory 2-field PERG data were obtained in 91% (N = 253) of patients; data from 24 patients (9%) were excluded because of poor compliance (n = 17) or nystagmus (n = 7). Standard PERGs were consistent with macular dysfunction in 44% of cases; large-field PERG revealed macular dysfunction in an additional 8% of eyes and helped to distinguish between localized central, predominantly paracentral, and widespread macular dysfunction. The results were consistent with multifocal electroretinogram and/or imaging studies on the same patients. In some patients with optic nerve disease, the large-field PERG provided clearer evidence of normal macular function than the standard PERG. CONCLUSION: Routine use of the large-field PERG is a valuable complement to standard-field PERG testing in the evaluation and management of patients with different forms of macular or generalized retinal dysfunction and can be useful in patients with optic nerve disease.
PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical use of the large-field pattern electroretinogram (PERG) as an adjunct test to the International-standard PERG in an unselected sequential cohort of patients referred for routine electrophysiologic assessment. METHODS: Pattern electroretinograms to both 15° × 11° (International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision Standard) and 30° × 22° (large field) checkerboard field sizes were recorded in 277 consecutive electrophysiology patients, aged 10-79 years. Most patients had additional tests including full-field electroretinogram, electrooculogram, multifocal electroretinograms, or cortical visual evoked potential. Patient data were compared with data from 27 control subjects. RESULTS: Satisfactory 2-field PERG data were obtained in 91% (N = 253) of patients; data from 24 patients (9%) were excluded because of poor compliance (n = 17) or nystagmus (n = 7). Standard PERGs were consistent with macular dysfunction in 44% of cases; large-field PERG revealed macular dysfunction in an additional 8% of eyes and helped to distinguish between localized central, predominantly paracentral, and widespread macular dysfunction. The results were consistent with multifocal electroretinogram and/or imaging studies on the same patients. In some patients with optic nerve disease, the large-field PERG provided clearer evidence of normal macular function than the standard PERG. CONCLUSION: Routine use of the large-field PERG is a valuable complement to standard-field PERG testing in the evaluation and management of patients with different forms of macular or generalized retinal dysfunction and can be useful in patients with optic nerve disease.
Authors: Anna Machalińska; Aleksandra Kowalska-Budek; Miłosz Piotr Kawa; Arkadiusz Kazimierczak; Krzysztof Safranow; Marta Kirkiewicz; Grażyna Wilk; Wojciech Lubiński; Piotr Gutowski; Bogusław Machaliński Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: A Majander; A G Robson; C João; G E Holder; P F Chinnery; A T Moore; M Votruba; A Stockman; P Yu-Wai-Man Journal: Mitochondrion Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Elena R Schiff; Malena Daich Varela; Anthony G Robson; Karen Pierpoint; Rola Ba-Abbad; Savita Nutan; Wadih M Zein; Ehsan Ullah; Laryssa A Huryn; Sari Tuupanen; Omar A Mahroo; Michel Michaelides; Derek Burke; Katie Harvey; Gavin Arno; Robert B Hufnagel; Andrew R Webster Journal: Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.359