Mi Yeon Song1, Ungsoo Samuel Kim2. 1. Kim's Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Chung-Ang University, Gwangmyeong Hospital, Deokan-ro 110, Gwangmyeong-si, Gyeonggi-do, 14353, Republic of Korea. ungsookim@caumc.or.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the current status of electrophysiological test use in ophthalmology. METHODS: We analyzed 1057 electrophysiological tests conducted at Kim's Eye Hospital from January 1 to December 31, 2018. The included tests were electroretinogram (full-field, multifocal, and pattern ERG), electrooculogram (EOG), and visual evoked potential (pattern and flash VEP). To investigate the distribution of use of subspecialties, it was divided by subspecialties (retina, glaucoma, oculoplastic surgery, pediatric ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology, cornea, and external diseases). RESULTS: The patients were aged 50.6 years on average and included 624 men and 433 women. Among the electrophysiological tests, VEP was the most common, with 567 cases (53.6%), followed by ERG with 311 cases (29.4%) and EOG with 98 cases (9.3%). Regarding the purpose of use, the objective of visual function evaluation was the highest at 56.3%, followed by the differential diagnosis of unknown causes (33.0%) and the confirmation of diagnoses (10.7%). Both VEP and ERG were used the most for visual function evaluation, and mfERG was most used for differential diagnosis of unknown etiology. Electrophysiological tests were most often used in the retina department, but VEPs were used in various fields such as neuro-ophthalmology, glaucoma, and oculoplastics. CONCLUSION: Electrophysiological tests are used to objectively evaluate visual function or discriminate diseases of unknown causes and are used in various departments. Electrophysiology testing is expected to be an additional test to assess visual function.
PURPOSE: To investigate the current status of electrophysiological test use in ophthalmology. METHODS: We analyzed 1057 electrophysiological tests conducted at Kim's Eye Hospital from January 1 to December 31, 2018. The included tests were electroretinogram (full-field, multifocal, and pattern ERG), electrooculogram (EOG), and visual evoked potential (pattern and flash VEP). To investigate the distribution of use of subspecialties, it was divided by subspecialties (retina, glaucoma, oculoplastic surgery, pediatric ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology, cornea, and external diseases). RESULTS: The patients were aged 50.6 years on average and included 624 men and 433 women. Among the electrophysiological tests, VEP was the most common, with 567 cases (53.6%), followed by ERG with 311 cases (29.4%) and EOG with 98 cases (9.3%). Regarding the purpose of use, the objective of visual function evaluation was the highest at 56.3%, followed by the differential diagnosis of unknown causes (33.0%) and the confirmation of diagnoses (10.7%). Both VEP and ERG were used the most for visual function evaluation, and mfERG was most used for differential diagnosis of unknown etiology. Electrophysiological tests were most often used in the retina department, but VEPs were used in various fields such as neuro-ophthalmology, glaucoma, and oculoplastics. CONCLUSION: Electrophysiological tests are used to objectively evaluate visual function or discriminate diseases of unknown causes and are used in various departments. Electrophysiology testing is expected to be an additional test to assess visual function.
Authors: Michael Bach; Mitchell G Brigell; Marko Hawlina; Graham E Holder; Mary A Johnson; Daphne L McCulloch; Thomas Meigen; Suresh Viswanathan Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; Graham E Holder; Daphne L McCulloch; Atsushi Mizota; Alma Patrizia Tormene Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Donald C Hood; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; David Keating; Mineo Kondo; Jonathan S Lyons; Michael F Marmor; Daphne L McCulloch; Anja M Palmowski-Wolfe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-30 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Ruth Hamilton; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich; Michael B Hoffmann; J Vernon Odom; Daphne L McCulloch; Dorothy A Thompson Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Paul A Constable; Michael Bach; Laura J Frishman; Brett G Jeffrey; Anthony G Robson Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 2.379