However, there are substantial differences between patients with RP and
those with SMD-FF when both the amplitude and the timing data are taken
into consideration. Furthermore, the dependency of the response phases
on cone contrast seems to be different between different patient
groups. The mean M-cone–driven ERG response phase
P M was significantly phase advanced in
patients with SMD-FF (−323°), patients with RP
13 (−326°), and patients with BMD
42 (−345°) when
compared with normal subjects (−376°). The mean L-cone driven ERG
phase
P L was significantly phase
delayed in patients with SMD-FF (−399°) and in patients with
RP
13 (−486°), whereas
P L of the patients with BMD did not
show a significant difference from that of normal
subjects
42 (−383° and −385°, respectively). The mean
L/M-cone–driven ERG sensitivity
S m,
however, was normal in the patients with SMD-FF as a group (0.301 μV·
[% cone
contrast]
− 1) compared
with that in normal subjects (0.320 μV · [% cone
contrast]
− 1), whereas
S m was significantly decreased in
patients with RP
13 (0.151 μV · [% cone
contrast]
− 1) and
significantly increased in those with BMD
42 (0.493 μV·[
% cone contrast]
− 1).
Furthermore, in normal subjects,
10 12 patients with
BMD,
42 and patients with SMD-FF, both the L- and the
M-cone–driven ERG phases are positively correlated with cone contrast,
whereas in most patients with RP, there is a negative
correlation.
13 We conclude that L/M-cone–driven ERGs can
serve as a tool for a differential diagnosis of hereditary retinal
disorders when both amplitude and phase criteria are considered.