Literature DB >> 21981853

Noninvasive transorbital alternating current stimulation improves subjective visual functioning and vision-related quality of life in optic neuropathy.

Carolin Gall1, Susann Sgorzaly, Sein Schmidt, Stephan Brandt, Anton Fedorov, Bernhard A Sabel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) can improve visual field size in patients with optic nerve damage, but it is not known if this is of subjective relevance. We now assessed patient reported outcomes to determine the association between visual field changes and vision-related quality of life (QoL).
METHODS: Patients having visual field impairments long after optic nerve damage (mean lesion age 5.5 years) were randomly assigned to a rtACS (n = 24) or sham stimulation group (n = 18). Visual fields and patient reported outcome measures (vision-related QoL: National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, NEI-VFQ and health-related QoL: Short Form Health Survey, SF-36) were collected before and after a 10-day treatment course with daily sessions of 20 to 40 minutes. The primary outcome measure was the percent change from baseline of detection ability (DA) in defective visual field sectors as defined by computer-based high resolution perimetry (HRP). Secondary outcome parameters included further HRP parameters as well as static and kinetic perimetry results. Changes in QoL measures were correlated with changes in primary and secondary outcome measures in both groups.
RESULTS: DA increase in the defective visual field was significantly larger after rtACS (41.1 ± 78.9%, M ± SD) than after sham stimulation (13.6 ± 26.3%), P < 0.05. While there was a significant increase of DA in the whole tested HRP visual field after rtACS (26.8 ± 76.7%, P < 0.05), DA in sham-stimulation patients remained largely unchanged (2.7 ± 20.2%, ns). Results of secondary outcome measures (static and kinetic perimetry) provided further evidence of rtACS efficacy. Improvements in NEI-VFQ subscale "general vision" were observed in both groups but were larger in the rtACS group (11.3 ± 13.5, Z = -3.21, P < 0.001) than in the sham group (4.2 ± 9.4, Z = -1.73, P < 0.05) with a significant difference between groups (Z = -1.71, P < 0.05). DA change and some NEI-VFQ domains were correlated (r = 0.29, P < 0.05), but no significant correlations were observed between DA and SF-36 results.
CONCLUSIONS: rtACS facilitates vision restoration after unilateral, long-term optic nerve lesion as assessed both by objective DA changes and improvements in some NEI-VFQ subscales. Both were positively but low correlated, which suggests that factors other than visual field size also contribute to improved vision-related QoL.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21981853     DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2011.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Stimul        ISSN: 1876-4754            Impact factor:   8.955


  27 in total

1.  Non-invasive electrical brain stimulation induces vision restoration in patients with visual pathway damage.

Authors:  Carolin Gall; Andrea Antal; Bernhard A Sabel
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 2.  Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.

Authors:  A Antal; I Alekseichuk; M Bikson; J Brockmöller; A R Brunoni; R Chen; L G Cohen; G Dowthwaite; J Ellrich; A Flöel; F Fregni; M S George; R Hamilton; J Haueisen; C S Herrmann; F C Hummel; J P Lefaucheur; D Liebetanz; C K Loo; C D McCaig; C Miniussi; P C Miranda; V Moliadze; M A Nitsche; R Nowak; F Padberg; A Pascual-Leone; W Poppendieck; A Priori; S Rossi; P M Rossini; J Rothwell; M A Rueger; G Ruffini; K Schellhorn; H R Siebner; Y Ugawa; A Wexler; U Ziemann; M Hallett; W Paulus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 3.  Transcranial electrical stimulation nomenclature.

Authors:  Marom Bikson; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Devin Adair; Greg Kronberg; William J Tyler; Andrea Antal; Abhishek Datta; Bernhard A Sabel; Michael A Nitsche; Colleen Loo; Dylan Edwards; Hamed Ekhtiari; Helena Knotkova; Adam J Woods; Benjamin M Hampstead; Bashar W Badran; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Whole-eye electrical stimulation therapy preserves visual function and structure in P23H-1 rats.

Authors:  Adam M Hanif; Moon K Kim; Joel G Thomas; Vincent T Ciavatta; Micah Chrenek; John R Hetling; Machelle T Pardue
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 3.467

Review 5.  Electrical Stimulation as a Means for Improving Vision.

Authors:  Amer Sehic; Shuai Guo; Kin-Sang Cho; Rima M Corraya; Dong F Chen; Tor P Utheim
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 6.  Electrical stimulation of cranial nerves in cognition and disease.

Authors:  Devin Adair; Dennis Truong; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Nigel Gebodh; Helen Borges; Libby Ho; J Douglas Bremner; Bashar W Badran; Vitaly Napadow; Vincent P Clark; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2020-02-23       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 7.  Relearning to See in Cortical Blindness.

Authors:  Michael D Melnick; Duje Tadin; Krystel R Huxlin
Journal:  Neuroscientist       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 7.519

Review 8.  Neuroprotective strategies for retinal disease.

Authors:  Machelle T Pardue; Rachael S Allen
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 21.198

Review 9.  Mental stress as consequence and cause of vision loss: the dawn of psychosomatic ophthalmology for preventive and personalized medicine.

Authors:  Bernhard A Sabel; Jiaqi Wang; Lizbeth Cárdenas-Morales; Muneeb Faiq; Christine Heim
Journal:  EPMA J       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 6.543

10.  Multi-channel transorbital electrical stimulation for effective stimulation of posterior retina.

Authors:  Sangjun Lee; Jimin Park; Jinuk Kwon; Dong Hwan Kim; Chang-Hwan Im
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.