Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2015

01-04-2015 | Original Research Article

Electrophysiological testing as a method of cone–rod and cone dystrophy diagnoses and prediction of disease progression

Authors: Ewa Langwińska-Wośko, Kamil Szulborski, Anna Zaleska-Żmijewska, Jerzy Szaflik

Published in: Documenta Ophthalmologica | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the characteristics of patients with cone (CD) and cone–rod dystrophies (CRD) and to evaluate the changes in flash electroretinograms in both groups.

Methods

The retrospective study involved 48 patients—34 with CRD and 14 with CD. The patients underwent full ophthalmological examination, including Goldmann perimetry and full-field flash electroretinogram (FERG) within the initial examination. These examinations were then repeated seven, or more, years later. The longest follow-up period was 10 years, with the mean at 8.2 years. During both examinations, we assessed the amplitudes of the b wave in the scotopic ERG test 0.01 (which reflects rod response), the maximal scotopic ERG test 3.0 (which reflects cone and rod response) and the photopic 3.0 ERG test (which reflects cone response). The results were then compared against normal values.

Results

The progression over time of ERG b wave amplitudes in the scotopic ERG 0.01, maximal scotopic ERG 3.0 and photopic ERG tests was assessed. There were significant differences in rod, maximal and cone responses, between CD and CRD patients. While rod responses were markedly decreased in CRD patients during their initial examination, the decrease in the rod function in both CD and CRD patients was similar in their follow-up examination (p = 0.2398). Moreover, during initial examination, maximal responses were less common amongst CRD patients, over those with CD. Following the observation period, patients suffering from CRD exhibited a significant decrease in both maximal (p = 0.0125) and cone (p = 0.0046) responses.

Conclusion

The clinical course of CRD and CD may vary; however, the latter appears to have a more favourable course than former. Although, at initial examination, the cone function was more diminished in CD patients, the final examinations reveal a more significant drop for CRD patients. Consequently, a differential diagnosis is essential for treating patients and forecasting their disease progression.
Literature
2.
3.
go back to reference Gregory-Evans K, Fariss RN et al (1998) Abnormal cone synapses in human cone–rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology 105:2306–2312CrossRefPubMed Gregory-Evans K, Fariss RN et al (1998) Abnormal cone synapses in human cone–rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology 105:2306–2312CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Michaelides M, Hardcastle AJ et al (2006) Progressive cone and cone–rod dystrophies: phenotypes and underlying molecular genetic basis. Surv Ophthalmol 51(3):232–258CrossRefPubMed Michaelides M, Hardcastle AJ et al (2006) Progressive cone and cone–rod dystrophies: phenotypes and underlying molecular genetic basis. Surv Ophthalmol 51(3):232–258CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
go back to reference Thiadens A, Soerjoesing G, Florijn R, Tjiam A et al (2011) Clinical course of cone dystrophy caused by mutations in the RPGR gene. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:1527–1535CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Thiadens A, Soerjoesing G, Florijn R, Tjiam A et al (2011) Clinical course of cone dystrophy caused by mutations in the RPGR gene. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:1527–1535CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
7.
go back to reference Sakuramoto H, Kuniyoshi K, Tsunoda K, Ahahori M et al (2013) Two siblings with late-onset cone–rod dystrophy and no visible macular degeneration. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1703–1711CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Sakuramoto H, Kuniyoshi K, Tsunoda K, Ahahori M et al (2013) Two siblings with late-onset cone–rod dystrophy and no visible macular degeneration. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1703–1711CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
8.
go back to reference Thiadens A, Phan TM, Zekveld-Vroon RC, Leroy BP et al (2012) Clinical course, genetic etiology and visual outcome in cone and cone–rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology 119:819–826CrossRefPubMed Thiadens A, Phan TM, Zekveld-Vroon RC, Leroy BP et al (2012) Clinical course, genetic etiology and visual outcome in cone and cone–rod dystrophy. Ophthalmology 119:819–826CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Langwińska-Wośko E, Szulborski K, Broniek-Kowalik K (2010) Late-onset cone dystrophy. Doc Ophthalmol 120(3):215–218CrossRefPubMed Langwińska-Wośko E, Szulborski K, Broniek-Kowalik K (2010) Late-onset cone dystrophy. Doc Ophthalmol 120(3):215–218CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Yokochi M, Li D, Horiguchi M, Kishi S (2012) Inverse pattern of photoreceptor abnormalities in retinitis pigmentosa and cone–rod dystrophy. Doc Ophthalmol 125:211–218CrossRefPubMedCentral Yokochi M, Li D, Horiguchi M, Kishi S (2012) Inverse pattern of photoreceptor abnormalities in retinitis pigmentosa and cone–rod dystrophy. Doc Ophthalmol 125:211–218CrossRefPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Kamenarova K, Corton M, García-Sandoval B, Fernández-San Jose P et al (2013) Novel GUCA1A mutations suggesting possible mechanisms of pathogenesis in cone, cone-rod, and macular dystrophy patients. Biomed Res Int 2013:517–570 Kamenarova K, Corton M, García-Sandoval B, Fernández-San Jose P et al (2013) Novel GUCA1A mutations suggesting possible mechanisms of pathogenesis in cone, cone-rod, and macular dystrophy patients. Biomed Res Int 2013:517–570
12.
go back to reference Michaelides M, Wilkie SE, Jenkins S et al (2005) Mutation in the gene GCA1A, encoding guanylate cyclase-activating protein 1, causes cone, cone–rod, and macular dystrophy. Ophthalmology 112(8):1442–1447CrossRefPubMed Michaelides M, Wilkie SE, Jenkins S et al (2005) Mutation in the gene GCA1A, encoding guanylate cyclase-activating protein 1, causes cone, cone–rod, and macular dystrophy. Ophthalmology 112(8):1442–1447CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Michelides M, Hunt DM, Moore AT (2004) The cone dysfunction syndromes. Br J Ophthalmol 88:291–297CrossRef Michelides M, Hunt DM, Moore AT (2004) The cone dysfunction syndromes. Br J Ophthalmol 88:291–297CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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(1):69–77CrossRefPubMed 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(1):69–77CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Galli-Resta L, Piccardi M, Ziccardi L et al (2013) Early detection of central visual function decline in cone–rod dystrophy by the use of macular focal cone electroretinogram. Investig Ophth Vis Sci 54:6560–6568CrossRef Galli-Resta L, Piccardi M, Ziccardi L et al (2013) Early detection of central visual function decline in cone–rod dystrophy by the use of macular focal cone electroretinogram. Investig Ophth Vis Sci 54:6560–6568CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Traboulsi EI (1998) Cone dystrophy. In: Traboulsi EI (ed) Genetic diseases of the eye. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 358–359 Traboulsi EI (1998) Cone dystrophy. In: Traboulsi EI (ed) Genetic diseases of the eye. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 358–359
Metadata
Title
Electrophysiological testing as a method of cone–rod and cone dystrophy diagnoses and prediction of disease progression
Authors
Ewa Langwińska-Wośko
Kamil Szulborski
Anna Zaleska-Żmijewska
Jerzy Szaflik
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Documenta Ophthalmologica / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0012-4486
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2622
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-015-9479-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Documenta Ophthalmologica 2/2015 Go to the issue