An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: A possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve

Citation
Dc. Hood et al., An interocular comparison of the multifocal VEP: A possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve, INV OPHTH V, 41(6), 2000, pp. 1580-1587
Citations number
22
Categorie Soggetti
da verificare
Journal title
INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
ISSN journal
01460404 → ACNP
Volume
41
Issue
6
Year of publication
2000
Pages
1580 - 1587
Database
ISI
SICI code
0146-0404(200005)41:6<1580:AICOTM>2.0.ZU;2-5
Abstract
PURPOSE. TO develop a quantitative measure of local damage to the ganglion cells/optic nerve based on an interocular comparison of multifocal visual e voked potentials (mVEP). METHODS. Multifocal VEPs were recorded from both eyes of six normal subject s and four patients; each eye was stimulated separately. Two of the patient s had glaucoma. one had ischemic optic neuropathy, and one had unilateral o ptic neuritis. All four patients had considerably more damage in one eye th an in the other, as indicated by their Humphrey visual fields. The multi-in put procedure of Sutter was used to obtain 60 VEP responses to a scaled che ckerboard pattern. The amplitude in each response was obtained using a root mean square measure of response magnitude. For each of die 60 pairs of res ponses, a ratio between the amplitude of the responses from the two eyes wa s Obtained as a measure of the relative health of one eye compared with the other. The mean and SD of this ratio measure for the control group were us ed to specific confidence intervals for each of the 60 locations. AU patien ts had Humphrey 24-2: visual fields performed. To allow a comparison of the mVEPs to the visual fields, a procedure was developed for displaying the r esults of both tests on a common set of coordinates. RESULTS. Except for a small interocular difference in timing attributable t o nasotemporal retinal differences, the pairs of mVEP responses from the tw o eyes of the control subjects were essentially identical. Many of the pair s of responses from the patients were significantly different. In general, there was reasonably good agreement with the Humphrey 24-2 visual field dat a. Although some regions with visual field defects were not detected in the mVEP due to small responses from the better eye, other abnormalities were detected that were hard to discern in the visual fields. CONCLUSIONS. Local monocular damage to the ganglion cell/optic nerve can be quantitatively measured by an interocular comparison of the mVEP.