IOVS Molecular Pharmacology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2007;48:5773-5781.)
© 2007 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.07-0834
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gundogan, F. C.
Right arrow Articles by Sobaci, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gundogan, F. C.
Right arrow Articles by Sobaci, G.

Is Optical Coherence Tomography Really a New Biomarker Candidate in Multiple Sclerosis?—A Structural and Functional Evaluation

Fatih C. Gundogan,1 Seref Demirkaya,2 and Gungor Sobaci1

1From the Departments of Ophthalmology and 2Neurology, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey.

PURPOSE. To assess the structural and functional status of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) without a history of optic neuritis.

METHODS. Thirty-nine patients with MS who had reported no visual symptoms before and after the time of MS diagnosis were included. Thirty-eight healthy subjects were included as a control group. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was determined by optical coherence tomography. Pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEP), full-field electroretinogram (ERG), and multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) were performed.

RESULTS. There was a significant reduction (P = 0.011) only in temporal RNFL thickness in patients with MS. P100 latency was significantly delayed with both 60-min arc checks (P < 0.001) and 15-min arc checks (P < 0.001); however, P100 amplitude was significantly reduced only in 60-min arc checks (P = 0.026). Rod response b-wave implicit time and standard combined response a- and b-wave implicit times were significantly delayed in patients with MS. Patients with MS with a delayed P100 latency (21/39; 53.8%) had significantly reduced cone response b-wave amplitude and significantly delayed cone response a- and b-wave implicit times in ERG. mfERG results did not differ between MS and control subjects and between patients with a delayed and a normal P100 latency. Pearson correlations between RNFL thickness and P100 amplitude and latency in patients with MS were not significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS. There is no correlation between RNFL thickness and P100 response in patients with MS. PVEP seems to be a more reliable biomarker in determining visual pathway involvement in patients with no history of optic neuritis.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology