4.4 Article

Evaluation of residual retinal function by pupillary constrictions and phosphenes using transcorneal electrical stimulation in patients with retinal degeneration

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-006-0260-3

关键词

retinitis pigmentosa; cone-rod dystrophy; pupillary reflex; phosphene; transcorneal electrical stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To evaluate inner-retinal function by pupillary constrictions and phosphenes evoked by transcorneal electrical stimulation (TES) in patients with hereditary retinal degeneration. Methods: Consecutive 20 eyes of 20 patients (16 with retinitis pigmentosa (RP); and four with cone-rod dystrophy (CRD)) whose visual acuity was equal to or worse than 20/2000 at Osaka University Hospital and eight eyes of eight healthy subjects were enrolled. TES was performed on with a contact lens stimulating electrode. The electrically evoked pupillary response (EEPR) was recorded by a pupillometer, and the phosphenes by the subjective responses. Three electrical current thresholds were determined: T1, threshold current for initial phosphene; T2, threshold for eliciting a phosphene extending into the central field; and P, threshold for a relative pupillary constriction N3%.The EEPR and phosphene thresholds were compared with the visual acuity or the visual field. Results: All T1, T2 and P were significantly higher in patients than in normals (Mann-Whitney, P < 0.001). Both T1 and T2 were not correlated with visual acuity but depended on the area and location of the residual visual field. T1 and T2 in RP eyes with a EEPR was significantly lower than that in RP eyes without an EEPR. During TES, all subjects and patients had no pain, and no complications except for a slight corneal superficial punctuate keratopathy. Conclusions: The safety and the efficacy of TES to estimate the residual inner-retinal function in patients with retinal degeneration indicate that TES can be used as one of the most important test to select candidates for retinal prostheses.

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

4.4
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