May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Separating Demyelinating and Ischemic Optic Neuropathies Using Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential Recordings
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D.E. Gih
    University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
  • C. Ringger
    University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
  • K. Woodward
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • C. Doyle
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • J. Allen
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • M. Wall
    University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
    Veterans Administration Hospital, Iowa City, IA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D.E. Gih, None; C. Ringger, None; K. Woodward, None; C. Doyle, None; J. Allen, None; M. Wall, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 5493. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D.E. Gih, C. Ringger, K. Woodward, C. Doyle, J. Allen, M. Wall; Separating Demyelinating and Ischemic Optic Neuropathies Using Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential Recordings . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):5493.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:to investigate whether the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) can reliably differentiate among normals, optic neuritis (ON) patients and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AION) patients. Methods:We tested 45 healthy volunteers, 22 patients with ON and six with AION using conventional automated perimetry (CAP) with the Humphrey SITA Standard 24–2 and mfVEP (ObjectiVision Accumap). Statistical comparisons examining latency and Accumap Severity Index (ASI) were performed. The empiric probability plots for amplitude deviation (maximal peak–to–trough), amplitudes less than 90nV, and intereye asymmetry were also analyzed. Results: Using ANOVA on ASI values of the affected, unaffected and normal eyes in the three groups, statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) were manifested for the following comparisons: AION affected and normal; ON affected and normal; AION affected and AION unaffected; and ON affected and ON unaffected. The sensitivity of mfVEP using the 90nV measure in all patients was found to be 75%, for maximal peak–to–trough 79%, and for intereye 82%. The specificities were 96%, 100%, and 87% respectively. The sensitivity for CAP was 82% with a specificity of 98%. All AION patients showed concurrent defects in CAP, 90nV, maximal peak–to–trough, and intereye asymmetry evaluations. Only 50% of ON patients showed defects with both mfVEP measures. Furthermore in the ON patients, the sensitivities were CAP: 77%, 90nV: 68%, maximal peak–to–trough: 73%, and intereye: 77%. Latency analysis of the major peak revealed a statistical difference (P < 0.001) using ANOVA on ranks between the ON and normal groups; there was no significant difference between the normal and AION groups. Conclusions: The mfVEP is useful for detecting ON and AION and latency differences may be useful in distinguishing ON from AION.

Keywords: visual fields • visual impairment: neuro–ophthalmological disease • electrophysiology: clinical 
×
×

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.

×