May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Multifocal and Pattern ERG Evaluation of Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) in the Treatment of Age–Related Macular Degeneration.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M.M. Neveu
    Electrophysiology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • A. Tufail
    Electrophysiology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • J.G. Dowler
    Electrophysiology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • G.E. Holder
    Electrophysiology, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M.M. Neveu, None; A. Tufail, NOVARTIS R; J.G. Dowler, NOVARTIS R; G.E. Holder, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 3176. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M.M. Neveu, A. Tufail, J.G. Dowler, G.E. Holder; Multifocal and Pattern ERG Evaluation of Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) in the Treatment of Age–Related Macular Degeneration. . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3176.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare multi–focal ERG (mfERG) and pattern ERG (PERG) in the assessment of treatment of age–related macular degeneration (ARMD) with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Methods:12 patients with predominantly classic sub–foveal neovascular membranes complicating ARMD were assessed pre– and post– PDT treatment. PERG and mfERGs were performed on all patients. PERG (visual field 15 x 11 degrees) and mfERG (visual field 12.2 x 10.4 degrees) parameters were compared over a similar field size. Patients were examined prior to and post treatment, with additional examinations at 3 monthly intervals for 2 years. Results:Six out of 12 patients had detectable, but abnormal PERGs from the treatment eye. The remaining 6 patients had no detectable PERG, but showed recordable, depressed mfERG’s across the same visual field. The strongest correlation, over 2 years, from both treated and fellow eyes was between the amplitude of the P50 component of the PERG and the density/amplitude of the p1 component of the mfERG (R=0.96, P<0.001). There was no correlation between the latencies of these components over this period. The amplitude and latency of P50 and N95 from the treated eye were significantly different from the fellow eye (P<0.005). There was no significant difference in N95/P50 ratio between eyes (P=0.24). There was improvement in P50 and p1 amplitude and latency following treatment, but the results did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions:The PERG and mfERG are both appropriate measures for assessing treatment outcomes of patients with ARMD. The PERG provides an overall assessment of macular function, whereas the mfERG enables a degree of spatial resolution not present with PERG.

Keywords: electrophysiology: clinical • age–related macular degeneration • retina 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×