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


     


(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2007;48:1312-1318.)
© 2007 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.06-0630

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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gerth, C.
Right arrow Articles by Westall, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gerth, C.
Right arrow Articles by Westall, C. A.

Assessment of Central Retinal Function in Patients with Advanced Retinitis Pigmentosa

Christina Gerth, Tom Wright, Elise Héon, and Carol A. Westall

From the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE. To assess central retinal function in patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa (RP) using the multifocal (mf)ERG and static perimetry.

METHODS. Patients with RP; a nonrecordable, full-field (ff)ERG; and visual acuity (VA) of ≤ 1.0 logMAR were included. All patients underwent mfERG testing (103 hexagons, and 2.67 and 5.33 cd · s · m–2 flash intensities) and static perimetry (103 corresponding areas) in the better eye. First-order kernel mfERGs were analyzed for total noise, signal-to-noise ratio, response amplitude, and implicit time. The number of areas with recordable mfERG responses were counted and compared with visual field (VF) sensitivity.

RESULTS. Twenty-nine patients aged 16 to 68 years with a VA of 0.02 to 1.0 logMAR and a kinetic VF of 10° to 60° in diameter were included. mfERGs were successfully performed in 22 of 29 patients. Responses were detected in at least one stimulated area in 22 of 22 patients, with an overall response detection of 9.8% in all stimulated areas and no difference between flash intensities. All responses were diminished severely in response density P1-N1, with normal P1 implicit time in 50% of the recordings. No predictive factors for recordable mfERG responses were identified. VF results were recorded reliably in 27 of 29 patients, with a 40% response detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS. mfERG responses were recordable in at least one area in all successfully tested patients with advanced RP. Response detection and performance was significantly higher for static perimetry. Static perimetry may be a more sensitive primary outcome measure of central vision function than the mfERG in patients with advanced RP and nonrecordable ffERGs.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
IOVSHome page
Y.-f. Ng, H. H. L. Chan, P. H. W. Chu, C.-h. To, B. C. Gilger, R. M. Petters, and F. Wong
Multifocal Electroretinogram in Rhodopsin P347L Transgenic Pigs
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2008; 49(5): 2208 - 2215.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




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