Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Documenta Ophthalmologica
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 3/2015

01-12-2015 | Original Research Article

Clinical value of electrophysiology in determining the diagnosis of visual dysfunction in neuro-ophthalmology patients

Authors: G. H. Yap, L. Y. Chen, R. Png, J. L. Loo, S. Tow, R. Mathur, A. Chia

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess clinical value of visual electrophysiology in identifying causes of visual dysfunction in patients referred from neuro-ophthalmology clinics.

Methods

A review of 410 subjects (aged 0.3–88 years) referred for visual electrophysiology from neuro-ophthalmologists between 2009 and 2013 was performed. Subjects were divided into those with unexplained poor vision, visual field defects, visual symptoms or other reasons (e.g. monitoring for drug toxicity or known conditions). Subjects underwent pattern, full-field and multifocal electroretinography (ERG) and pattern visual evoked potential (VEP) tests. Flash and multifocal VEP were included where indicated.

Results

Most subjects referred for poor vision (n = 158) had electrophysiology findings suggestive of retinopathy (37 %) or post-retinal pathology (34 %). Those with poorer vision (worse than 6/24) were more likely to have abnormal recordings (86 vs. 62 %, p = 0.002). Among subjects with unexplained visual field defects (n = 102), findings of retinopathy, post-retinal pathology and normal recordings were noted in 31, 24 and 28 %, respectively. Most subjects with other visual symptoms (n = 97) had normal findings (69 %). The multifocal ERG was most sensitive for detecting retinopathy (96 %) and maculopathy (95 %), while pattern VEP was most sensitive for post-retinal pathology (94 %). An indeterminate result was noted in 9 %.

Conclusion

Electrophysiology was effective in differentiating between retinopathy, post-retinal pathology and normality in 91 % of subjects. Pre-testing provisional diagnoses of retinopathy and post-retinal pathology were revised in 30 and 42 %, respectively, after electrophysiology. Appreciation of characteristics of each test, correlation with the clinical picture and interpretation of results in totality are required to localize the site of pathology.
Literature
1.
Sadun AA, Agarwal MR (2005) Topical diagnosis of acquired optic nerve disorders. Walsh and Hoyt’s Clinical Neuro-Ophthalmology, 6th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 197–236
2.
Kanski JJ, Bowling B (2011) Neuro-ophthalmology: optic nerve. Clinical ophthalmology a systemic approach, 7th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 789–802
3.
4.
Glaser JS (1999) Topical diagnosis: prechiasmal visual pathways. Neuro-opthalmology, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 95–97
5.
6.
Holder GE (2001) Pattern ERG and an integrated approach to visual pathway diagnosis. Prog Retinal Eye Res 20(4):531–561CrossRef
7.
Zhang X, Kedar S, Lynn MJ, Newman NJ, Biousse V (2006) Homonymous hemianopias: clinical-anatomic correlations in 904 cases. Neurology 66(6):906–910CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kedar S, Zhang X, Lynn MJ, Newman NJ, Biousse V (2007) Congruency in homonymous hemianopia. Am J Ophthalmol 143(5):772–780CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Meyer KT, Heckenlively JR, Spitznas M, Foos RY (1982) Dominant retinitis pigmentosa. A clinicopathologic correlation. Ophthalmology 89(12):1414–1424CrossRefPubMed
11.
Keithahn MA, Huang M, Keltner JL, Small KW, Morse LS (1996) The variable expressivity of a family with central areolar pigment epithelial dystrophy. Ophthalmology 103(3):406–415CrossRefPubMed
12.
Fetkenhour CL, Gurney N, Dobbie JG, Choromokos E (1976) Central areolar pigment epithelial dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 81(6):745–753CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Marmor MF, Fulton AB, Holder GE, Miyake Y, Brigell M, Bach M (2009) ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2008 update). Doc Ophthalmol 118:69–77CrossRefPubMed
15.
Young B, Eggenberger E, Kaufman D (2012) Curr Opin Ophthalmol. Curr Electrophysiol Ophthalmol Rev 23(6):497–505CrossRef
16.
Bach M, Brigell MG, Hawlina M, Holder GE, Johnson MA, McCulloch DL, Meigen T, Viswanathan S (2013) ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography (PERG): 2012 update. Doc Ophthalmol 126:1–7CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, Marmor MF, McCulloch DL, Palmowski-Wolfe AM (2012) ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Lai TYY, Chan WM, Lai RYK, Ngai JWS, Li H, Lam DSC (2007) The clinical applications of multifocal electroretinography: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol 2(1):61–66CrossRef
19.
Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Tormene AP, Vaegan (2010) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 120:111–119CrossRefPubMed
20.
Walsh P, Kane N, Butler S (2005) The clinical role of evoked potentials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 76:16–22CrossRef
21.
Renner AB, Kellner U, Tillack H, Kraus H, Foerster MH (2005) Recording of both VEP and multifocal ERG for evaluation of unexplained visual loss. Doc Ophthalmol 111:149–157CrossRefPubMed
22.
Odel JG, Chen CC, Behrens MM, Hong JE, Hood DC. (2002) The multifocal electroretinogram in a neuro-ophthalmology practice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:E-Abstract 2640
23.
Corbett MC, Shilling JS, Holder GE (1995) The assessment of clinical investigations: the Greenwich Grading System and its application to electrodiagnostic testing in ophthalmology. Eye 9:59–64PubMed
24.
Bhatt D (2013) Electrophysiology for ophthalmologist (a practical approach). J Clin Ophthalmol Res 1:45–54CrossRef
25.
Hood DC, Odel JG, Chen CS, Winn BJ (2003) The Multifocal Electroretinogram. J Neuro-Ophthalmol 23(3):225–235CrossRef
26.
27.
Andrew RW, Vincent N, Yuan Z, Michael H, Michael K (2014) The value of clinical electrophysiology in the assessment of the eye and visual system in the era of advanced imaging. Clin Exp Optom 97:99–115CrossRef
28.
29.
Towle VL, Cakmur R, Cao Y, Brigell M, Parmeggiani L (1995) Locating VEP equivalent dipoles in magnetic resonance images. Int J Neurosci 80(1–4):105–116CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Clinical value of electrophysiology in determining the diagnosis of visual dysfunction in neuro-ophthalmology patients
Authors
G. H. Yap
L. Y. Chen
R. Png
J. L. Loo
S. Tow
R. Mathur
A. Chia
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-015-9515-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Documenta Ophthalmologica 3/2015 Go to the issue

Clinical Case Report

Recurrent episodes of night blindness in a patient with short bowel syndrome

Original Research Article

Correlation between N2 amplitude of multifocal ERGs and retinal sensitivity and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in glaucomatous eyes

Original Research Article

The effects of gender and age on the range of the normal human electro-oculogram

Clinical Case Report

A negative waveform in the scotopic response in a patient with phosphoglycerate kinase deficiency: a visual electrophysiology report

Original Research Article

Electrophysiology and colour: a comparison of methods to evaluate inner retinal function

Original Research Article

In vivo release and retinal toxicity of cyclosporine-loaded intravitreal device