PURPOSE: To determine whether neuroretinal function differs in healthy adult males and females younger and older than 50 years. METHODS: This study included one eye from each of 50 normal subjects (29 females and 21 males). Neuroretinal function was assessed using first-order P1 implicit times (ITs) and N1-P1 amplitudes (AMPs) obtained from photopic multifocal electroretinograms. To assess local differences, retinal maps of local IT and (separately) AMP averages were constructed for each subject group. To examine global differences, each subject's 103 ITs and (separately) AMPs were also averaged to create whole-eye averages. Subsequently, retinal maps and whole-eye averages of one subject group were compared with those of another. RESULTS: In subjects younger than 50 years, neuroretinal function differed significantly between the males and females: local ITs were significantly shorter at 83 of 103 tested retinal locations, and whole-eye IT averages were shorter (p = 0.015) in the males compared with the females. In contrast, no analysis indicated that the males and females older than 50 years were significantly different. A subanalysis showed that the females who reported a hysterectomy (n = 5) had the longest whole-eye ITs of all subject groups (p ≤ 0.0013). In the females who did not report a hysterectomy, neuroretinal function was worse in the females older than 50 years compared with the females younger than 50 years: local ITs were significantly longer at 62 of 103 retinal locations tested, and whole-eye IT averages tended to be greater (p = 0.04). Conversely, ITs were not statistically different between the younger and older males. N1-P1 amplitudes did not differ between the sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal electroretinogram IT differs between males and females, depending on the age group and hysterectomy status.
PURPOSE: To determine whether neuroretinal function differs in healthy adult males and females younger and older than 50 years. METHODS: This study included one eye from each of 50 normal subjects (29 females and 21 males). Neuroretinal function was assessed using first-order P1 implicit times (ITs) and N1-P1 amplitudes (AMPs) obtained from photopic multifocal electroretinograms. To assess local differences, retinal maps of local IT and (separately) AMP averages were constructed for each subject group. To examine global differences, each subject's 103 ITs and (separately) AMPs were also averaged to create whole-eye averages. Subsequently, retinal maps and whole-eye averages of one subject group were compared with those of another. RESULTS: In subjects younger than 50 years, neuroretinal function differed significantly between the males and females: local ITs were significantly shorter at 83 of 103 tested retinal locations, and whole-eye IT averages were shorter (p = 0.015) in the males compared with the females. In contrast, no analysis indicated that the males and females older than 50 years were significantly different. A subanalysis showed that the females who reported a hysterectomy (n = 5) had the longest whole-eye ITs of all subject groups (p ≤ 0.0013). In the females who did not report a hysterectomy, neuroretinal function was worse in the females older than 50 years compared with the females younger than 50 years: local ITs were significantly longer at 62 of 103 retinal locations tested, and whole-eye IT averages tended to be greater (p = 0.04). Conversely, ITs were not statistically different between the younger and older males. N1-P1 amplitudes did not differ between the sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal electroretinogram IT differs between males and females, depending on the age group and hysterectomy status.
Authors: Gregory R Jackson; JulioDeLeon Ortega; Christopher Girkin; Carol E Rosenstiel; Cynthia Owsley Journal: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Christina Gerth; Susan M Garcia; Lei Ma; John L Keltner; John S Werner Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2002-02-19 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: M Weinstein; T Gorrindo; A Riley; J Mormino; J Niedfeldt; B Singer; G Rodríguez; J Simon; S Pincus Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: William Seiple; Thasarat S Vajaranant; Janet P Szlyk; Colleen Clemens; Karen Holopigian; Jennifer Paliga; David Badawi; Ronald E Carr Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anna E C Molnar; Sten O L Andreasson; Eva K B Larsson; Hanna M Åkerblom; Gerd E Holmström Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2015-10-18 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Claudia C Ma; Ja K Gu; Michael E Andrew; Desta Fekedulegn; John M Violanti; Barbara Klein; Cathy Tinney-Zara; Luenda E Charles Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 1.648