Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 2651
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 59-64

Multifocal and pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials vs. automated perimetry frequency-doubling technology matrix in optic neuritis


Department of Sense Organs, Electrophysiology Ocular Centre, Sapienza University of Rome, viale del policlinico Rome, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Marcella Nebbioso
Department of Sense Organs, Electrophysiology Ocular Centre, Sapienza University of Rome, viale del policlinico Rome
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.99638

Rights and Permissions

Background: To compare the usefulness of the traditional pattern-reversal Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP) with multifocal VEP (mfVEP) and Frequency-Doubling Technology (FDT) perimetry in the evaluation of the ocular abnormalities induced by acute or subacute optic neuritis (ON). Materials and Methods: The test results of 24 ON patients were compared with those obtained in 40 normal control subjects. MfVEP recordings were obtained by using an Optoelectronic Stimulator that extracts topographic VEP using a pseudorandom m-sequence stimulus. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to determine the sensitivity and specificity of abnormal values. Results: The frequency of the abnormal ocular findings differed in the ON patients according to the used technique. Reduced visual sensitivity was demonstrated in 12 eyes (54.5%) using FDT perimetry; 17 eyes (77.2%) showed decreased amplitude and/or an increase in the implicit time of the P1 wave in mfVEP and 20 eyes (90.9%) showed an abnormal decrease in the amplitude and/or an increase in the latency of the P100 peak at VEP examination. The areas under the ROC curves ranged from 0.743 to 0.935, with VEP having the largest areas. The VEP and mfVEP amplitudes and latencies yielded the greatest sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: The mfVEP and the FDT perimetry can be used for the evaluation and monitoring of visual impairment in patients with ON. The most sensitive and practical diagnostic tool in patients with ON is, however, the traditional VEP. The mfVEP can be utilized in those cases with doubtful or negative VEP results.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3394    
    Printed67    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded270    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal