Dinah Chen1, Vivienne C Greenstein1, Scott E Brodie2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. scott.brodie@nyumc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Traditional ERGs recorded using corneal electrodes can be difficult for some patients to tolerate. In the last several years, adhesive skin electrodes have gained in acceptance. In this report we present a qualitative comparison of waveforms as well as a quantitative analysis of correlation of amplitudes and implicit times of simultaneous ERG recordings using contact lens and skin electrodes. METHODS: 89 subjects were included; all were referred for full-field ERG testing for multiple indications. ERGs (obtained according to ISCEV standards) were recorded simultaneously from both eyes with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes using multi-channel instrumentation (Diagnosys LLC, Espion3). Waveforms, a-wave and b-wave amplitudes and implicit times were compared. RESULTS: Waveform morphologies were similar between electrode types. Regression coefficients (conversion factors) for a-wave and b-wave amplitudes under both photopic and scotopic conditions were tightly clustered. Regression coefficients for implicit times were nearly equal to 1.0. The regression coefficient for the entire amplitude dataset was 0.349, with an overall correlation of 0. 869 between amplitude recorded with skin and contact lens electrodes. The regression coefficient for the entire implicit time dataset was 0.967, with an overall correlation of 0.964 between skin and contact lens electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Our best estimate for the conversion factor between ERG amplitudes recorded with adhesive skin electrodes and contact lens electrodes is 0.349-amplitudes with skin electrodes are about 1/3 the amplitudes recorded simultaneously from the same eyes with contact lens electrodes, with a high correlation. Implicit times are nearly identical for the two electrode types.
PURPOSE: Traditional ERGs recorded using corneal electrodes can be difficult for some patients to tolerate. In the last several years, adhesive skin electrodes have gained in acceptance. In this report we present a qualitative comparison of waveforms as well as a quantitative analysis of correlation of amplitudes and implicit times of simultaneous ERG recordings using contact lens and skin electrodes. METHODS: 89 subjects were included; all were referred for full-field ERG testing for multiple indications. ERGs (obtained according to ISCEV standards) were recorded simultaneously from both eyes with ERG-jet corneal contact lens electrodes and LKC Technologies Sensor Strip adhesive skin electrodes using multi-channel instrumentation (Diagnosys LLC, Espion3). Waveforms, a-wave and b-wave amplitudes and implicit times were compared. RESULTS: Waveform morphologies were similar between electrode types. Regression coefficients (conversion factors) for a-wave and b-wave amplitudes under both photopic and scotopic conditions were tightly clustered. Regression coefficients for implicit times were nearly equal to 1.0. The regression coefficient for the entire amplitude dataset was 0.349, with an overall correlation of 0. 869 between amplitude recorded with skin and contact lens electrodes. The regression coefficient for the entire implicit time dataset was 0.967, with an overall correlation of 0.964 between skin and contact lens electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Our best estimate for the conversion factor between ERG amplitudes recorded with adhesive skin electrodes and contact lens electrodes is 0.349-amplitudes with skin electrodes are about 1/3 the amplitudes recorded simultaneously from the same eyes with contact lens electrodes, with a high correlation. Implicit times are nearly identical for the two electrode types.
Authors: Daphne L McCulloch; Michael F Marmor; Mitchell G Brigell; Ruth Hamilton; Graham E Holder; Radouil Tzekov; Michael Bach Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-14 Impact factor: 2.379