Amir Danyaei1, Ali Kasiri2, Seyed Mahmoud Latifi3, Parvin Armiun4, Mohammad Javad Tahmasebi1. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Ophthalmology Research Center, Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 3. Department of Health School, Faculty of Health School, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. armiun.p@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of glaucomatous damage on the mfVEP parameters of patients suffering from primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects and 15 patients with unilateral POAG participated in this study. In addition, routine ophthalmological examinations including visual acuity, anterior segment examination, posterior segment examination, intraocular pressure, mfVEP with electrophysiological system, RETI-port/Scan 21, and visual field test with automated Humphrey ZEISS HFA II 750i Perimeter were also performed. RESULTS: The results show that there was a strong correlation between the ∆MDs and the number of abnormal points with the ∆amplitudes more than 256 nV, in patients (n = 15, r = 0.802, p < 0.05), but no correlations were found between the mean sensitivity differences (ΔPSDs) and mfVEP parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the monocular mfVEP responses from both eyes is an appropriate method to detect unilateral damage. Achievement of more development and making the mfVEP test more functional can be a solution for early diagnosis in most of the eye diseases.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of glaucomatous damage on the mfVEP parameters of patients suffering from primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS: Fifteen healthy subjects and 15 patients with unilateral POAG participated in this study. In addition, routine ophthalmological examinations including visual acuity, anterior segment examination, posterior segment examination, intraocular pressure, mfVEP with electrophysiological system, RETI-port/Scan 21, and visual field test with automated Humphrey ZEISS HFA II 750i Perimeter were also performed. RESULTS: The results show that there was a strong correlation between the ∆MDs and the number of abnormal points with the ∆amplitudes more than 256 nV, in patients (n = 15, r = 0.802, p < 0.05), but no correlations were found between the mean sensitivity differences (ΔPSDs) and mfVEP parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the monocular mfVEP responses from both eyes is an appropriate method to detect unilateral damage. Achievement of more development and making the mfVEP test more functional can be a solution for early diagnosis in most of the eye diseases.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mean deviation; Multifocal visual evoked potential; Pattern standard deviation; Visual field
Authors: William Seiple; Karen Holopigian; Colleen Clemens; Vivienne C Greenstein; Donald C Hood Journal: Vision Res Date: 2004-12-19 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Donald C Hood; Vivienne C Greenstein; Jeffrey G Odel; Xian Zhang; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Jenny E Hong; Candice S Chen; Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2002-12