May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Flash Visual Evoked Potentials in Healthy Volunteers and Patients Using the RETIscan LED–Goggles
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S. Bueltmann
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • P. Weimer
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • K. Rohrschneider
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S. Bueltmann, None; P. Weimer, None; K. Rohrschneider, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  DFG Grant Ro973/11–2
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 5486. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S. Bueltmann, P. Weimer, K. Rohrschneider; Flash Visual Evoked Potentials in Healthy Volunteers and Patients Using the RETIscan LED–Goggles . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):5486.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose Flash–VEP represents a method commonly used to evaluate the visual function when pattern VEP cannot be recorded due to opaque media, low visual acuity, instable fixation of various reasons and reduced compliance in children, mentally disabled and patients with malingering. We wanted to evaluate the use of a new stimulator provided for flash VEP in normals as well as patients with optic nerve disorders. Methods 40 eyes of 20 healthy volunteers with a visual acuity of 1.0 or higher were stimulated unilaterally and bilaterally using the standard ISCEV–recommended electrode setup with the RETIscan LED goggles and a Toennies Multiliner system. 100 averages were sampled per recording at a 8000mcds/m2 red stimulus intensity during 5 minutes recording time with 5Hz/5ms. Analysis included N75, P100 and N140 latencies as well as the P100 amplitudes. Results In normal eyes, binocular implicit times for the P100 amplitudes varied from 92.4 to 195ms (median 149ms) while P100 implicit times varied from 88ms to 195ms (median 159ms). The median difference between right and left intra–individual recordings were 23.4 to 0.6ms (median 4.2ms) for P100 implicit times. P100 amplitudes ranged from 4.2 to 20.2 µV (mdedian 10.3V). In the patients with traumatic or degenerative optic nerve affections we found significant uni– or bilateral increase in P100 implicit times or total loss. Pupil dilation or closed eyes did not affect the results in healthy volunteers. Conclusion Although there is a wide variability of normal results, the new stimulation system appears to be sufficient for easy F–VEP stimulation under conditions where pattern–VEP stimulation is not appropriate, especially in mentally disabled and infants where positioning in front of a strobe–light stimulator may not be appropriate.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques • neuro–ophthalmology: optic nerve • visual cortex 
×
×

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.

×