| Literature DB >> 24558598 |
Xiaoli Shen1, Lina Huang1, Ning Fan1, Jing He1.
Abstract
Purpose. To determine the relationship among photopic negative response (PhNR) of the electroretinogram (ERG), retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, and the visual field in normal and glaucomatous patients. Methods. Thirty-eight normal volunteers and one hundred twenty-four patients with Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) were enrolled in the study. The PhNRs were elicited by white stimuli on a white background and red stimuli on a blue background. The visual field parameters were measured using the standard automated perimetry (SAP). The spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) was used to measure the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness around the optic disc. Results. The PhNR amplitude (W/W, B/R), MD, and mean RNFL thickness in POAG eyes were significantly lower than normal eyes (P = 0.001). The R value in Normal + Glaucomatous group was higher than that of the only glaucomatous group. The R values of PhNR amplitude (B/R) with MD and RNFL were higher than those of PhNR amplitude (W/W). Significant linear association was found in the relationship between RNFL thickness and PhNR amplitude (B/R) (R (2) = 0.5, P = 0.001). However, significant curve associations were found in the relationship between MD and PhNR amplitude (B/R) and RNFL thickness (R (2) = 0.525, 0.442, P = 0.001). Conclusions. The ganglion cell activity can be more efficiently evaluated with the PhNR elicited with a red than with a broadband stimulus. The linear relationship between the PhNR amplitude and RNFL thickness indicates that inner retinal function declines proportionately with neural loss in glaucomatous eyes. The PhNR and RNFLT are more objective tools to detect glaucomatous damage than visual field.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24558598 PMCID: PMC3914179 DOI: 10.1155/2013/182021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-5688
Figure 1Representative ERGs recorded from a normal and a glaucomatous eye with moderate defects in the visual fields.
Demographic and clinical data for this study.
| Normal | Glaucoma |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects | 38 | 124 | |
| Gender (male/female) | 25/13 | 73/51 | 0.566* |
| Age (yrs) mean ± SD | 43.1 ± 14.5 | 45.2 ± 15.9 | 0.152 |
| Refraction (D) mean ± SD | −0.97 ± 1.97 | −1.25 ± 1.97 | 0.525 |
| Visual field MD (dB) ± SD | −1.23 ± 1.17 | −10.66 ± 9.85 | 0.001 |
| Average RNFL thickness (Cirrus OCT) | 101.7 ± 10.9 | 69.9 ± 14.0 | 0.001 |
| PhNR amplitude (W/W) | 45.6 ± 10.9 | 26.5 ± 12.7 | 0.001 |
| PhNR amplitude (B/R) | 47.8 ± 10.7 | 27.2 ± 13.5 | 0.001 |
D: diopters; MD: mean deviation; SD: standard deviation; PhNR: photopic negative response; W/W: white stimulus and white background; B/R: red stimuls and blue background; P*: Chi-square test; P: independent-sample t-test.
The relationship among the PhNR, MD and Avg-RNFL in normal and glaucoma groups.
| Normal + Glaucoma ( | Glaucoma ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| RNFL versus PhNR (W/W) | 0.627 | 0.628 | 0.454 | 0.454 |
| RNFL versus PhNR (B/R) | 0.707 | 0.707 | 0.565 | 0.568 |
| RNFL versus MD | 0.666 | 0.725 | 0.630 | 0.654 |
| MD versus PhNR (W/W) | 0.580 | 0.660 | 0.498 | 0.564 |
| MD versus PhNR (B/R) | 0.632 | 0.682 | 0.570 | 0.604 |
All the P < 0.05.
Figure 2PhNR amplitudes (B/R) against MD.
Figure 3PhNR amplitudes (B/R) against Avg-RNFLT.
Figure 4Avg-RNFLT against MD.