PURPOSE: To determine the extent of pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameter alteration by epiretinal membranes and to investigate the use of pattern-reversal visual evoked potential in the estimation of macular function in eyes with epiretinal membrane and in the fellow eyes. METHODS: In both eyes of 162 patients with epiretinal membrane, 92 of primary and 70 of secondary origin, pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials were recorded. Check sizes of 17', 10', and 7' (minutes of arc) were used. Parameters investigated were N80 and P100 latencies and P100 amplitude. RESULTS: No significant difference was detected between eyes with epiretinal membrane of primary and secondary origin regarding visual acuity and the pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameters for the different check sizes. Compared with the fellow eyes, the eyes with epiretinal membrane had a significantly reduced visual acuity, prolonged N80 and P100 latencies, and a reduced P100 amplitude for the different check sizes. Compared with a separate control group (N = 20) with patients 50 to 59 years old, eyes with epiretinal membrane (N = 9) showed the same features as in the total group, but only for the 17' and 10' check sizes. The fellow eyes (N = 9) showed a significant reduction of the P100 amplitude (P < .05) for the pattern sizes of 17' and 10', but no difference in visual acuity or pattern-reversal visual evoked potential latency was found. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with epiretinal membrane, pattern-reversal visual evoked potential latencies are prolonged, and amplitude is reduced. Relationships between clinical parameters and pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameters require further study.
PURPOSE: To determine the extent of pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameter alteration by epiretinal membranes and to investigate the use of pattern-reversal visual evoked potential in the estimation of macular function in eyes with epiretinal membrane and in the fellow eyes. METHODS: In both eyes of 162 patients with epiretinal membrane, 92 of primary and 70 of secondary origin, pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials were recorded. Check sizes of 17', 10', and 7' (minutes of arc) were used. Parameters investigated were N80 and P100 latencies and P100 amplitude. RESULTS: No significant difference was detected between eyes with epiretinal membrane of primary and secondary origin regarding visual acuity and the pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameters for the different check sizes. Compared with the fellow eyes, the eyes with epiretinal membrane had a significantly reduced visual acuity, prolonged N80 and P100 latencies, and a reduced P100 amplitude for the different check sizes. Compared with a separate control group (N = 20) with patients 50 to 59 years old, eyes with epiretinal membrane (N = 9) showed the same features as in the total group, but only for the 17' and 10' check sizes. The fellow eyes (N = 9) showed a significant reduction of the P100 amplitude (P < .05) for the pattern sizes of 17' and 10', but no difference in visual acuity or pattern-reversal visual evoked potential latency was found. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with epiretinal membrane, pattern-reversal visual evoked potential latencies are prolonged, and amplitude is reduced. Relationships between clinical parameters and pattern-reversal visual evoked potential parameters require further study.