PURPOSE: To test a framework that describes how the multifocal visual-evoked potential (mfVEP) technique is used in a particular glaucoma practice. METHODS: In this prospective, descriptive study, glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives and glaucoma patients were referred for mfVEP testing by a single glaucoma specialist over a 2-year period. All patients underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP) and mfVEP testing within 3 months. Two hundred and ten patients (420 eyes) were referred for mfVEP testing for the following reasons: (1) normal SAP tests suspected of early functional loss (ocular hypertensives, n = 43; and glaucoma suspects on the basis of suspicious optic disks, n = 52); (2) normal-tension glaucoma patients with suspected central SAP defects (n = 33); and (3) SAP abnormalities needing confirmation (n = 82). RESULTS: All the glaucoma suspects with normal SAP and mfVEP results remained untreated. Of those with abnormal mfVEP results, 68 % (15/22) were treated because the abnormal regions on the mfVEP were consistent with the abnormal regions seen during clinical examination of the optic disk. The mfVEP was abnormal in 86 % (69/80) of eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and SAP damage, even though it did not result in an altered treatment regimen. In NTG patients, the mfVEP showed central defects in 44 % (12 of 27) of the eyes with apparently normal central fields and confirmed central scotomata in 92 % (36 of 39), leading to more rigorous surveillance of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical practice, the mfVEP was used when clinical examination and subjective visual fields provided insufficient or conflicting information. This information influenced clinical management.
PURPOSE: To test a framework that describes how the multifocal visual-evoked potential (mfVEP) technique is used in a particular glaucoma practice. METHODS: In this prospective, descriptive study, glaucoma suspects, ocular hypertensives and glaucomapatients were referred for mfVEP testing by a single glaucoma specialist over a 2-year period. All patients underwent standard automated perimetry (SAP) and mfVEP testing within 3 months. Two hundred and ten patients (420 eyes) were referred for mfVEP testing for the following reasons: (1) normal SAP tests suspected of early functional loss (ocular hypertensives, n = 43; and glaucoma suspects on the basis of suspicious optic disks, n = 52); (2) normal-tension glaucomapatients with suspected central SAP defects (n = 33); and (3) SAP abnormalities needing confirmation (n = 82). RESULTS: All the glaucoma suspects with normal SAP and mfVEP results remained untreated. Of those with abnormal mfVEP results, 68 % (15/22) were treated because the abnormal regions on the mfVEP were consistent with the abnormal regions seen during clinical examination of the optic disk. The mfVEP was abnormal in 86 % (69/80) of eyes with glaucomatous optic neuropathy and SAP damage, even though it did not result in an altered treatment regimen. In NTGpatients, the mfVEP showed central defects in 44 % (12 of 27) of the eyes with apparently normal central fields and confirmed central scotomata in 92 % (36 of 39), leading to more rigorous surveillance of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical practice, the mfVEP was used when clinical examination and subjective visual fields provided insufficient or conflicting information. This information influenced clinical management.
Authors: D C Hood; X Zhang; V C Greenstein; S Kangovi; J G Odel; J M Liebmann; R Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi; Vivienne C Greenstein; Bryan J Winn; Nitin Ohri; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi; Vivienne C Greenstein; Candice S Chen; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Oraorn Thonginnetra; Vivienne C Greenstein; David Chu; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Douglas Hoffman; Dana P Tannenbaum; Simon K Law; Joseph Caprioli Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Anna A Ledolter; Matthias Monhart; Andreas Schoetzau; Margarita G Todorova; Anja M Palmowski-Wolfe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 2.379