May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Comparison in Clinical Practice of ERG A–wave Parameters after Standard and High–intensity Stimuli
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M.F. Marmor
    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
  • L. Cabael
    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
  • M. Marcus
    Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
    Ophthalmology, Soroka Medical Center and Ben–Gurion University of the Negev, Beer–Sheva, Israel
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M.F. Marmor, None; L. Cabael, None; M. Marcus, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 5148. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M.F. Marmor, L. Cabael, M. Marcus; Comparison in Clinical Practice of ERG A–wave Parameters after Standard and High–intensity Stimuli . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):5148.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: The standard ERG a–wave represents contributions from both photoreceptor and inner retinal cells, while the leading edge of the high–intensity a–wave is produced only by photoreceptors. This has raised questions about the value of the standard a–wave as an indicator of photoreceptor disease, and has led to suggestions for standardizing higher–intensity stimuli. Our objective was to compare the behavior of standard and high–intensity a–waves in clinical practice. Methods: Standard ISCEV a–waves and high–intensity a–wave responses were recorded under scotopic and photopic conditions from normal subjects and from patients with photoreceptor dystrophies and other diseases. Results: The amplitude of standard a–waves followed closely that of the high–intensity a–wave as it varied among patients with different diagnoses. The results did not change significantly when cone a–waves were subtracted to isolate rod signals. The only exception was one patient with the enhanced S cone syndrome (ESCS) whose dark–adapted responses were cone–driven. Initial peak times clustered in a limited range for both standard and high–intensity responses, and were not very sensitive to disease. Conclusions: High–intensity a–waves show photoreceptor characteristics directly, and may help to detect some rare disorders like the ESCS. However, the amplitude of the conventional a–wave mirrors that of the high–intensity response very closely over a wide range of patients. This suggests that for practical purposes the standard a–wave is an excellent indicator of photoreceptor disease.

Keywords: electroretinography: clinical • electrophysiology: clinical • retinal degenerations: hereditary 
×
×

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.

×