June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Analysis of electroretinograms performed from 2009 to 2011 at Children's Hospital Colorado
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jennifer Jung
    Ophthalmology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO
  • Ashley Laing
    Ophthalmology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO
  • Emily McCourt
    Ophthalmology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO
    Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO
  • Rebecca Braverman
    Ophthalmology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO
    Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Jennifer Jung, None; Ashley Laing, None; Emily McCourt, None; Rebecca Braverman, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5119. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jennifer Jung, Ashley Laing, Emily McCourt, Rebecca Braverman; Analysis of electroretinograms performed from 2009 to 2011 at Children's Hospital Colorado. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5119. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To review the use of electroretinograms at a tertiary pediatric hospital. To identify the common indications for referral and usefulness in diagnosis.

Methods: Retrospective chart review of electroretinograms performed at Children’s Hospital of Colorado from 2009 to 2011. One hundred and nineteen patients (male 60, female 59) aged <18 years were included, and 154 electroretinograms were reviewed.

Results: The average age at the time of first electroretingram was 4.95 years (range 3 months to 18 years). The most common reasons for referral were nystagmus (n = 37), decreased vision (n= 29) and vigabatrin (n=26). Most common electroretinography diagnosis was rod-cone dystrophy. The first electroretinogram for each patient confirmed the clinical suspicion in 63.4% (n=59) of cases, excluding vigabatrin patients. With subsequent genetic testing, specific diagnosis resulted in 15% (n=14) of cases. There were only three normal electroretinogram results based on normative value set by the manufacturer of the instrumentation used.

Conclusions: Electroretinograms can be a valuable tool in evaluating pediatric eye disease, especially when combined with clinical correlation. However, the lack of normative data for children may affect the accuracy of interpretation.

Keywords: 509 electroretinography: clinical  
×
×

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.

×