4.6 Article

Is optical coherence tomography really a new biomarker candidate in multiple sclerosis? - A structural and functional evaluation

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 12, 页码 5773-5781

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.07-0834

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. P-100 latency was significantly delayed with both 60-min arc checks (P < 0.001) and 15-min arc checks (P < 0.001); however, P-100 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 P-100 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 P-100 latency. Pearson correlations between RNFL thickness and P-100 amplitude and latency in patients with MS were not significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. There is no correlation between RNFL thickness and P-100 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据