May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
The Central Response of the Multi–Focal Electroretinograms (mf–ERG) and the Threshold of the Static Visual Field (VF) in Patients With Optic Nerve Lesions
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Kamei
    Ari Eye Clinic, Mizusawa, Japan
  • E. Nagasaka
    Mayo Corporation, Inazawa, Japan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Kamei, None; E. Nagasaka, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 648. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. Kamei, E. Nagasaka; The Central Response of the Multi–Focal Electroretinograms (mf–ERG) and the Threshold of the Static Visual Field (VF) in Patients With Optic Nerve Lesions . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):648.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To evaluate the interrelation of mf–ERG, especially of the second order kernel response in center and the threshold of static visual field in patients with optic nerve lesions. Methods: Twenty eyes of twenty normal volunteers and nine eyes of nine patients with optic nerve lesions were tested. The mf–ERG was recorded with the VERIS Science system. The visual stimulus was made up of 37 hexagons in an approximately 40–degree visual field, pseudo–randomly alternated between black (5cd/m2) and white (200cd/m2) on the CRT monitor. The Burian–Allen ERG Electrodes, Adult–bipolar or Pediatric–bipolar, were used for this testing. Recording time was approximately 8min. with dilated pupils having the best–corrected visual acuity. Band pass filter was set from 10 to 100 Hz. Each trace of the 1st and 2nd order kernel response was analyzed in the central hexagon. To prevent the influence from the individual, we used P1 of the second order kernel response/individual N1–P1 of the first order kernel response (P1/1st), N2 of the second order kernel response/ individual N1–P1 of the first order kernel response (N2/1st), P1–N2 of the second order kernel response/ individual N1–P1 of the first order kernel response (P1–N2/1st). The static visual field was examined by the central 10–2 threshold test of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. The Total Deviation (difference between the patient’s test result and the age–matched normal values in dB) was analyzed in the central four points. Results: P1/1st increases in the patients with optic nerve lesion compared to normals (P=0.00001086), N2/1st decreases (P=0.0477), P1–N2/1st increases (P=0.0032). There is the correlation between P1/1st and the total deviation (R=–0.8, P=0.0237), no correlation between N2/1st and the Total Deviation, the correlation between P1–N2/1st and the Total Deviation (R=–0.717,P=0.04266). Concerning the implicit time of P1and N2, there is no significant difference compared to normals and no significant correlation between the total deviation and P1 or N2. Conclusions: We demonstrated at ARVO in 2001 about the second order kernel response in concentric 5–degree area in normals and the patients with optic nerve lesion. This time the waveform of the second order kernel response in the center has different characteristic from the concentric 5–degree area in patients with optic nerve lesions.

Keywords: neuro-ophthalmology: optic nerve • electroretinography: clinical • visual fields 
×
×

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.

×