Jason C Park1, Felix Y Chau1, Jennifer I Lim1, J Jason McAnany2,3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1855 W. Taylor St., MC/648, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1855 W. Taylor St., MC/648, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. jmcana1@uic.edu. 3. Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, 851 South Morgan St., Chicago, IL, 60607, USA. jmcana1@uic.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate three measures of inner retina function, the pattern electroretinogram (pERG), the photopic negative response (PhNR), and the post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) in diabetics with and without nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR). METHODS: Fifteen non-diabetic control subjects and 45 type 2 diabetic subjects participated (15 have no clinically apparent retinopathy [NDR], 15 have mild NPDR, and 15 have moderate/severe NPDR). The pERG was elicited by a contrast-reversing checkerboard pattern, and the PhNR was measured in response to a full-field, long-wavelength flash presented against a short-wavelength adapting field. The PIPR was elicited by a full-field, 450 cd/m2, short-wavelength flash. All responses were recorded and analyzed using conventional techniques. One-way ANOVAs were performed to compare the pERG, PhNR, and PIPR among the control and diabetic groups. RESULTS: ANOVA indicated statistically significant differences among the control and diabetic subjects for all three measures. Holm-Sidak post hoc comparisons indicated small, nonsignificant reductions in the pERG (8%), PhNR (8%), and PIPR (10%) for the NDR group compared to the controls (all p > 0.25). In contrast, there were significant reductions in the pERG (35), PhNR (34%), and PIPR (30%) for the mild NPDR group compared to the controls (all p < 0.01). Likewise, there were significant reductions in the pERG (40%), PhNR (32%), and PIPR (32%) for the moderate/severe NPDR group compared to the controls (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Abnormalities of the pERG, PhNR, and PIPR suggest inner retina neural dysfunction in diabetics who have clinically apparent vascular abnormalities. Taken together, these measures provide a noninvasive, objective approach to study neural dysfunction in these individuals.
PURPOSE: To evaluate three measures of inner retina function, the pattern electroretinogram (pERG), the photopic negative response (PhNR), and the post-illumination pupil response (PIPR) in diabetics with and without nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR). METHODS: Fifteen non-diabetic control subjects and 45 type 2 diabetic subjects participated (15 have no clinically apparent retinopathy [NDR], 15 have mild NPDR, and 15 have moderate/severe NPDR). The pERG was elicited by a contrast-reversing checkerboard pattern, and the PhNR was measured in response to a full-field, long-wavelength flash presented against a short-wavelength adapting field. The PIPR was elicited by a full-field, 450 cd/m2, short-wavelength flash. All responses were recorded and analyzed using conventional techniques. One-way ANOVAs were performed to compare the pERG, PhNR, and PIPR among the control and diabetic groups. RESULTS: ANOVA indicated statistically significant differences among the control and diabetic subjects for all three measures. Holm-Sidak post hoc comparisons indicated small, nonsignificant reductions in the pERG (8%), PhNR (8%), and PIPR (10%) for the NDR group compared to the controls (all p > 0.25). In contrast, there were significant reductions in the pERG (35), PhNR (34%), and PIPR (30%) for the mild NPDR group compared to the controls (all p < 0.01). Likewise, there were significant reductions in the pERG (40%), PhNR (32%), and PIPR (32%) for the moderate/severe NPDR group compared to the controls (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Abnormalities of the pERG, PhNR, and PIPR suggest inner retina neural dysfunction in diabetics who have clinically apparent vascular abnormalities. Taken together, these measures provide a noninvasive, objective approach to study neural dysfunction in these individuals.
Authors: Beatrix Feigl; Andrew J Zele; Samantha M Fader; Annelisa N Howes; Catherine E Hughes; Kris A Jones; Rawlyn Jones Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: M D Davis; M R Fisher; R E Gangnon; F Barton; L M Aiello; E Y Chew; F L Ferris; G L Knatterud Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Gloria L Duque-Chica; Carolina P B Gracitelli; Ana L A Moura; Balázs V Nagy; Kallene S Vidal; Augusto Paranhos; Dora F Ventura Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Laura Frishman; Maja Sustar; Jan Kremers; J Jason McAnany; Marc Sarossy; Radouil Tzekov; Suresh Viswanathan Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Gabriel Izan Santos Botelho; Solange Rios Salomão; Célia Harumi Tengan; Rustum Karanjia; Felipo Victor Moura; Daniel Martins Rocha; Paula Baptista Eliseo da Silva; Arthur Gustavo Fernandes; Sung Eun Song Watanabe; Paula Yuri Sacai; Rubens Belfort; Valerio Carelli; Alfredo Arrigo Sadun; Adriana Berezovsky Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.003