4.6 Article

Assessment of central retinal function in patients with advanced retinitis pigmentosa

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 1312-1318

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0630

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 degrees to 60 degrees 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.

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