Purchase this article with an account.
Y. Sagara, N. Fuse, T. Nakazawa, K. Watanabe, H. Akiyama, M. Seimiya, S. Yokokura, M. Kurusu, T. Seki, M. Tamai; Pattern Reversal VEP and Contrast Sensitive Accurate Test After Acupuncture Stimulation in Glaucoma Subjects . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):5667.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: to evaluate the visual functions after acupuncture stimulation using Pattern Reversal (PR)–VEP and a contrast sensitivity Accurate Tester Methods: The glaucoma subjects who requested acupuncture treatments were administered acupuncture at 10 needle points ,IR3(R,L),SP6(R,L),GB20(R,L),GV20,EX–HN2 and BL2(R,L) for 15 minutes. We examined the visual functions before and after acupuncture stimulation using a contrast sensitivity Accurate Tester (CAT 2000) and PR–VEP. We tested manually in daytime and at dusk, contrast 100, 25, and 10 to each eye respectively using the CAT2000 ,and P100 latency and amplitude using PR–VEP. We examined PR–VEP to 2rev/sec stimulation consisting of a black and white checker board with central stimulus of 0 to 16 degrees radius ,and P–100 amplitude and latency of the same cortical point . Results: There were significant differences between the daytime contrast 100 and the daytime contrast 25 before and after acupuncture stimulation respectively. LogMARvalue in daytime contrast 25 before acupuncture stimulation was 0.56±0.221and after 0.475±0.224(n=20 p=0.0025). LogMAR value in daytime contrast 100 before treatment was 0.461±0.298 and after 0.404±0.285(n=23 p=0.0122).The value between before and after treatment was 0.085 in daytime contrast 25 and 0.056 in daytime contrast 100. The improvement of visual acuity by the treatment of acupuncture stimulation was not in proportion to the contrast but maximum in the daytime contrast 25. P–100 latency was advanced in72 % (15/21 eyes), was not changed in 24% (5/21 eyes), delayed in 4%(1/21 eyes).Before treatment the cases were 114.1±10.1 msec and after were 109±10.2 msec. The difference was P<0.0001. But N75–to–P100 amplitudes showed that there were no statistical differences. Conclusions: These results suggest that the electrophysiological method could be used to evaluate the effects of visual functions by acupuncture stimulation. Many subjects claimed that they could see clearly after the treatment. This must be distinguished from better and clear. This result shows that the improvement of visual acuity is best in the daytime contrast 25 and corresponds with the impressions of the subjects. In the case of PR–VEP the symptoms after treatments by advanced subjects were that they could see clearly and easily. We suggest that acupuncture stimulations are worthy of notice to improve visual functions.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only