PURPOSE: Photopic negative response (PhNR) and pattern electroretinogram (PERG) are electrophysiological markers of retinal ganglion cell function; both are reduced in glaucoma. We compared PhNR and PERG in different stages of the disease. METHODS: Eleven eyes with preperimetric glaucoma (glaucomatous optic disc with normal field); 18 with manifest glaucoma; and 26 normals were included. We obtained PhNR (flash strength from 0.1-4 cd·s/m(2)) and steady-state PERG and analyzed PhNR amplitude (baseline to 72 ms trough); PhNR/b-wave ratio; PERG amplitude; and PERG ratio (0.8°/16°). RESULTS: Identification of PhNR structure was only reliable ≥1 cd·s/m(2) flash strength; amplitude and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under curve (AUC) changed little from 1 to 4 cd·s/m(2). Both PhNR and PERG (amplitude and ratio) were reduced in preperimetric and more so in manifest glaucoma. AUCs based on PhNR/PERG amplitudes were not significantly different from chance in preperimetric glaucoma (AUCs 0.61/0.59), but were significant in manifest glaucoma (0.78/0.76); ratios were significant in both glaucoma groups (0.80/0.73 and 0.80/0.79). In spite of that, PhNR ratio and PERG ratio were not significantly correlated (r = 0.22 across all groups); an ROC based on a combination of both reached AUCs of 0.85/0.90 for preperimetric/manifest glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: Both PhNR and PERG performed similarly to detect glaucoma; for both, ratios performed better than amplitudes. The PhNR has the advantage of not requiring clear optics and refractive correction; the PERG has the advantage of being recorded with natural pupils.
PURPOSE: Photopic negative response (PhNR) and pattern electroretinogram (PERG) are electrophysiological markers of retinal ganglion cell function; both are reduced in glaucoma. We compared PhNR and PERG in different stages of the disease. METHODS: Eleven eyes with preperimetric glaucoma (glaucomatous optic disc with normal field); 18 with manifest glaucoma; and 26 normals were included. We obtained PhNR (flash strength from 0.1-4 cd·s/m(2)) and steady-state PERG and analyzed PhNR amplitude (baseline to 72 ms trough); PhNR/b-wave ratio; PERG amplitude; and PERG ratio (0.8°/16°). RESULTS: Identification of PhNR structure was only reliable ≥1 cd·s/m(2) flash strength; amplitude and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under curve (AUC) changed little from 1 to 4 cd·s/m(2). Both PhNR and PERG (amplitude and ratio) were reduced in preperimetric and more so in manifest glaucoma. AUCs based on PhNR/PERG amplitudes were not significantly different from chance in preperimetric glaucoma (AUCs 0.61/0.59), but were significant in manifest glaucoma (0.78/0.76); ratios were significant in both glaucoma groups (0.80/0.73 and 0.80/0.79). In spite of that, PhNR ratio and PERG ratio were not significantly correlated (r = 0.22 across all groups); an ROC based on a combination of both reached AUCs of 0.85/0.90 for preperimetric/manifest glaucoma. CONCLUSIONS: Both PhNR and PERG performed similarly to detect glaucoma; for both, ratios performed better than amplitudes. The PhNR has the advantage of not requiring clear optics and refractive correction; the PERG has the advantage of being recorded with natural pupils.
Authors: Pantea Moghimi; Nathalia Torres Jimenez; Linda K McLoon; Theoden I Netoff; Michael S Lee; Angus MacDonald; Robert F Miller Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Anthony C Fisher; Daphne L McCulloch; Mark S Borchert; Pamela Garcia-Filion; Cassandra Fink; Antonio Eleuteri; David M Simpson Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 2.379