Erkan Acar1, Aysun Soysal1, Mesude Tütüncü1, Zeynep Özdemir1, Selin Kaya2, Nilüfer Kale1. 1. Department of Neurology, Bakırköy Training and Research Hospital for Psychiatry, Neurology and Neurosurgery, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Bakırköy Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared white-black (WB), white-red (WR), and black-red (BR) checkerboard stimulated visual evoked potentials (VEPs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and aimed to evaluate if redcolored VEP is more sensitive than WB VEP for the diagnosis of optic neuritis (ON). METHODS: Twenty-nine MS patients (21 females [72.4%]) and 35 healthy control subjects (24 females [68.6%]) were included in the study. Neurological and ophthalmological examinations were conducted for all subjects and VEP and optical coherence tomography (OCT) investigations were performed. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between MS patients and the control group for WB, WR, BR stimulated VEP P100 latencies and retinal nerve fiber length (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC) thicknesses, but there was no difference for WB, WR, and rb stimulated VEP amplitude values between the groups. There was no significant pathological difference between the eyes with an ON history in MS and eyes without an ON history in MS and control subjects after WB, WR, and BR stimulation (p=). CONCLUSIONS: The WB checkerboard stimulated VEP is an ample test for routine use; further studies are necessary regarding the utility of rb stimulated VEP in detecting subclinical ON. Copyright:
INTRODUCTION: We compared white-black (WB), white-red (WR), and black-red (BR) checkerboard stimulated visual evoked potentials (VEPs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and aimed to evaluate if redcolored VEP is more sensitive than WB VEP for the diagnosis of optic neuritis (ON). METHODS: Twenty-nine MS patients (21 females [72.4%]) and 35 healthy control subjects (24 females [68.6%]) were included in the study. Neurological and ophthalmological examinations were conducted for all subjects and VEP and optical coherence tomography (OCT) investigations were performed. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between MS patients and the control group for WB, WR, BR stimulated VEP P100 latencies and retinal nerve fiber length (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC) thicknesses, but there was no difference for WB, WR, and rb stimulated VEP amplitude values between the groups. There was no significant pathological difference between the eyes with an ON history in MS and eyes without an ON history in MS and control subjects after WB, WR, and BR stimulation (p=). CONCLUSIONS: The WB checkerboard stimulated VEP is an ample test for routine use; further studies are necessary regarding the utility of rb stimulated VEP in detecting subclinical ON. Copyright:
Authors: Chris H Polman; Stephen C Reingold; Brenda Banwell; Michel Clanet; Jeffrey A Cohen; Massimo Filippi; Kazuo Fujihara; Eva Havrdova; Michael Hutchinson; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Xavier Montalban; Paul O'Connor; Magnhild Sandberg-Wollheim; Alan J Thompson; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian Weinshenker; Jerry S Wolinsky Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 10.422