PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of binocular multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) by comparing results with conventional monocular mfERG in patients with monocular macular disease. METHODS: mfERG testing was conducted on 32 patients with monocular macular disease and 30 normal subjects. An initial mfERG was simultaneously recorded from both eyes with two recording electrodes under binocular stimulation. A second mfERG was subsequently recorded with conventional monocular stimulation. Amplitudes and implicit times of each ring response of the binocular and monocular recordings were compared. Ring ratios of the binocular and monocular recording were also compared. RESULTS: In the macular disease group, there were no statistical differences in amplitude or implicit time for each of the five concentric rings between the monocular and binocular recordings. However, with binocular simulation, the ring ratios (ring 1 / ring 4, ring 1 / ring 5) were significantly reduced in the affected eye. In the normal control group, there were no statistical differences in any parameters between the monocular and binocular recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Binocular mfERG could be a good alternative to the conventional monocular test. In addition, given that the test needs stable fixation of the affected eye during the binocular test, the reliability of the test results could be improved, especially for patients with monocular macular disease.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of binocular multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) by comparing results with conventional monocular mfERG in patients with monocular macular disease. METHODS:mfERG testing was conducted on 32 patients with monocular macular disease and 30 normal subjects. An initial mfERG was simultaneously recorded from both eyes with two recording electrodes under binocular stimulation. A second mfERG was subsequently recorded with conventional monocular stimulation. Amplitudes and implicit times of each ring response of the binocular and monocular recordings were compared. Ring ratios of the binocular and monocular recording were also compared. RESULTS: In the macular disease group, there were no statistical differences in amplitude or implicit time for each of the five concentric rings between the monocular and binocular recordings. However, with binocular simulation, the ring ratios (ring 1 / ring 4, ring 1 / ring 5) were significantly reduced in the affected eye. In the normal control group, there were no statistical differences in any parameters between the monocular and binocular recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Binocular mfERG could be a good alternative to the conventional monocular test. In addition, given that the test needs stable fixation of the affected eye during the binocular test, the reliability of the test results could be improved, especially for patients with monocular macular disease.
Authors: Donald C Hood; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; David Keating; Mineo Kondo; Jonathan S Lyons; Michael F Marmor; Daphne L McCulloch; Anja M Palmowski-Wolfe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-30 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Dorit Raz; Mathias W Seeliger; Amir B Geva; Christine L Percicot; George N Lambrou; Ron Ofri Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David S Friedman; Benita J O'Colmain; Beatriz Muñoz; Sandra C Tomany; Cathy McCarty; Paulus T V M de Jong; Barbara Nemesure; Paul Mitchell; John Kempen Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-04