Literature DB >> 36273363

Comparing the RETeval® portable ERG device with more traditional tabletop ERG systems in normal subjects and selected retinopathies.

Jia Yue You1, Allison L Dorfman1, Mathieu Gauvin1, Dylan Vatcher1, Robert C Polomeno1, John M Little1, Pierre Lachapelle2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to determine if ISCEV standard-like ERGs recorded with the LKC RETeval® portable ERG unit compared to those obtained using the more traditional tabletop unit.
METHODS: ERGs recorded from normal subjects and patients affected with retinal ON and OFF pathway anomalies were compared. Analysis included peak time and amplitude measurements as well as time-frequency domain analysis with the discrete wavelet transform of waveforms obtained with the two systems.
RESULTS: Although both systems were similarly able to record reliable and highly reproducible ERG responses, there were major discrepancies in ERG responses between the portable and tabletop units, pointing toward a weaker stimulation of the retinal OFF pathway with the portable RETeval® unit.
CONCLUSION: The portable RETeval® unit appears to be able to record highly reproducible and diagnostically useful clinical ERGs, albeit with some significant differences in waveform composition compared to those obtained with more standard tabletop systems. Given the unknown origin of these waveform discrepancies, if left uncorrected, these differences could potentially lead to erroneous interpretation when used in the clinical context and/or compared to ERGs recorded using more traditional table top units. Clearly, more research is warranted before handheld devices, such as the RETeval®, can be homologated as a diagnostically sound ERG devices.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electroretinography; Handheld stimulator; RETeval ®; Recording system; Retinopathy; Tabletop stimulator

Year:  2022        PMID: 36273363     DOI: 10.1007/s10633-022-09903-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0012-4486            Impact factor:   1.854


  33 in total

Review 1.  The electroretinogram in diabetic retinopathy.

Authors:  R Tzekov; G B Arden
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.048

2.  Comparison of electroretinographic measurements between tabletop and handheld stimulators in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Bum G Kim; In B Chang; Kyeong D Jeong; Jae Y Park; Jae S Kim; Je Hyung Hwang
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Factors Affecting Mydriasis-Free Flicker ERGs Recorded With Real-Time Correction for Retinal Illuminance: Study of 150 Young Healthy Subjects.

Authors:  Kumiko Kato; Mineo Kondo; Ryunosuke Nagashima; Asako Sugawara; Masahiko Sugimoto; Hisashi Matsubara; Daphne L McCulloch; Kengo Ikesugi
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Recording and Analysis of the Human Clinical Electroretinogram.

Authors:  Mathieu Gauvin; Allison L Dorfman; Pierre Lachapelle
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2018

5.  Using the RETeval Device in Healthy Children to Establish Normative Electroretinogram Values.

Authors:  Christa D Soekamto; Rishabh Gupta; Katie M Keck
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 1.402

6.  Pattern ERGs suggest a possible retinal contribution to the visual acuity loss in acute optic neuritis.

Authors:  G T Plant; G E Holder; I Kleerekooper; L Del Porto; L Dell'Arti; J Guajardo; S Leo; A G Robson; S A Trip; A Petzold
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Evaluation of light- and dark-adapted ERGs using a mydriasis-free, portable system: clinical classifications and normative data.

Authors:  Henry Liu; Xiang Ji; Sabrina Dhaliwal; Syeda Naima Rahman; Michelle McFarlane; Anupreet Tumber; Jeff Locke; Tom Wright; Ajoy Vincent; Carol Westall
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.379

8.  Constant luminance (cd·s/m2) versus constant retinal illuminance (Td·s) stimulation in flicker ERGs.

Authors:  C Quentin Davis; Olga Kraszewska; Colette Manning
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 2.379

9.  Evaluation of cone function by a handheld non-mydriatic flicker electroretinogram device.

Authors:  Natsuko Nakamura; Kaoru Fujinami; Yoshinobu Mizuno; Toru Noda; Kazushige Tsunoda
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-30

10.  Validity, Usefulness and Cost of RETeval System for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening.

Authors:  Humoud Al-Otaibi; Mohammed D Al-Otaibi; Rajiv Khandekar; Ches Souru; Abdulelah A Al-Abdullah; Hassan Al-Dhibi; Donald U Stone; Igor Kozak
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.