Emilio González-García1, Concepción Vilela2, Amparo Navea2, Emma Arnal2, Maria Muriach3, Francisco J Romero4. 1. Fisabio Oftalmología Médica, C/Alfons Blat no 33 Manises, Valencia, Spain. egongar@gmail.com. 2. Fisabio Oftalmología Médica, C/Alfons Blat no 33 Manises, Valencia, Spain. 3. Unidad predepartamental de Medicina, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain. 4. Facultad de Medicina y Odontología, Universidad Católica de Valencia "San Vicente Mártir", Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the major causes of progressive and debilitating visual impairment in developed countries and has become a growing health and social issue that needs to be addressed. Imaging techniques and functional tests are useful to assess the degree of macular dysfunction and AMD progression. However, given the slow progression of the disease, it is necessary to identify which techniques are more sensitive for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with AMD. PURPOSE: To study changes observed with both imaging techniques and electrophysiological tests in dry AMD-diagnosed patients during 2 years in order to identify the most sensitive technique. METHODS: Fundus photography, OCT (macular thickness and number of drusen), Pattern VEP (P100 wave), Pattern ERG (P50 wave) and multifocal ERG (central rings) were carried out in 30 patients that were diagnosed with dry AMD in both eyes. The tests were repeated 1 and 2 years later. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes were observed in visual acuity or in the severity of the disease throughout the study. OCT showed an increase in the number of drusen, as well as in macular thickness. As for the electrophysiological techniques, no significant changes were observed throughout the study in Pattern VEP or Pattern ERG. mfERG showed significant alterations. Statistical analysis showed that mfERG is more efficient in detecting changes throughout the experimental period. CONCLUSIONS: OCT and mfERG are useful in the diagnosis and monitoring of dry AMD patients, whilst mfERG is the most sensitive technique to study the progression of this disease in short periods of time.
BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the major causes of progressive and debilitating visual impairment in developed countries and has become a growing health and social issue that needs to be addressed. Imaging techniques and functional tests are useful to assess the degree of macular dysfunction and AMD progression. However, given the slow progression of the disease, it is necessary to identify which techniques are more sensitive for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with AMD. PURPOSE: To study changes observed with both imaging techniques and electrophysiological tests in dry AMD-diagnosed patients during 2 years in order to identify the most sensitive technique. METHODS: Fundus photography, OCT (macular thickness and number of drusen), Pattern VEP (P100 wave), Pattern ERG (P50 wave) and multifocal ERG (central rings) were carried out in 30 patients that were diagnosed with dry AMD in both eyes. The tests were repeated 1 and 2 years later. RESULTS: No statistically significant changes were observed in visual acuity or in the severity of the disease throughout the study. OCT showed an increase in the number of drusen, as well as in macular thickness. As for the electrophysiological techniques, no significant changes were observed throughout the study in Pattern VEP or Pattern ERG. mfERG showed significant alterations. Statistical analysis showed that mfERG is more efficient in detecting changes throughout the experimental period. CONCLUSIONS:OCT and mfERG are useful in the diagnosis and monitoring of dry AMDpatients, whilst mfERG is the most sensitive technique to study the progression of this disease in short periods of time.
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: J Catalá-Mora; M Castany-Aregall; J A Berniell-Trota; L Arias-Barquet; G Roca-Linares; I Jürgens-Mestre Journal: Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol Date: 2005-07
Authors: J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; Graham E Holder; Daphne L McCulloch; Alma Patrizia Tormene Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: M Ortiz Del Castillo; B Cordón; E M Sánchez Morla; E Vilades; M J Rodrigo; C Cavaliere; L Boquete; E Garcia-Martin Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Hernán H Dieguez; Horacio E Romeo; María F González Fleitas; Marcos L Aranda; Georgia A Milne; Ruth E Rosenstein; Damián Dorfman Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 5.758
Authors: Luis de Santiago; M Ortiz Del Castillo; Elena Garcia-Martin; María Jesús Rodrigo; Eva M Sánchez Morla; Carlo Cavaliere; Beatriz Cordón; Juan Manuel Miguel; Almudena López; Luciano Boquete Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 3.576