Multifocal visual evoked potential for evaluation of open-angle glaucoma.

POAG SD-OCT best-corrected visual acuity logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution mfVEP multifocal visual evoked potential primary open-angle glaucoma retinal nerve fiber layer thickness spectral-domain optical coherence tomography static automated perimetry visual field

Journal

Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal
ISSN: 2322-3219
Titre abrégé: Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101611331

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 26 08 2021
accepted: 29 09 2021
medline: 17 11 2021
pubmed: 17 11 2021
entrez: 29 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To correlate multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) findings with static automated perimetry (SAP) and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) in eyes with primary open- angle glaucoma (POAG). This cross-sectional study included a consecutive sample of 40 eyes of 40 patients with POAG. The participants underwent a complete ophthalmologic assessment, axial length (AL) measurement, and assessments with SAP, SD-OCT, and mfVEP. POAG cases were aged 49.70 (14.16) years (mean [SD]) and most were females (n = 24, 60%). For eyes of patients with POAG, the mfVEP upper-ring signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) showed a significant negative correlation with best-corrected logMAR visual acuity (r = - 0.33; mfVEP is a promising tool for objective assessment of the VF in patients with POAG, as it is positively correlated with the VF and OCT RNFL thickness. Future longitudinal studies with a larger sample size and a specific glaucoma subtype, along with multiple follow-up evaluations, are warranted to confirm our preliminary results.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
To correlate multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) findings with static automated perimetry (SAP) and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) in eyes with primary open- angle glaucoma (POAG).
Methods UNASSIGNED
This cross-sectional study included a consecutive sample of 40 eyes of 40 patients with POAG. The participants underwent a complete ophthalmologic assessment, axial length (AL) measurement, and assessments with SAP, SD-OCT, and mfVEP.
Results UNASSIGNED
POAG cases were aged 49.70 (14.16) years (mean [SD]) and most were females (n = 24, 60%). For eyes of patients with POAG, the mfVEP upper-ring signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) showed a significant negative correlation with best-corrected logMAR visual acuity (r = - 0.33;
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
mfVEP is a promising tool for objective assessment of the VF in patients with POAG, as it is positively correlated with the VF and OCT RNFL thickness. Future longitudinal studies with a larger sample size and a specific glaucoma subtype, along with multiple follow-up evaluations, are warranted to confirm our preliminary results.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37641709
doi: 10.51329/mehdiophthal1429
pmc: PMC10460219
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

114-120

Informations de copyright

© Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None.

Références

Acta Ophthalmol. 2011 Nov;89(7):e550-4
pubmed: 21599873
Eye (Lond). 2011 Oct;25(10):1302-9
pubmed: 21720415
Surv Ophthalmol. 2007 Mar-Apr;52(2):156-79
pubmed: 17355855
Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2016;11(5):367-376
pubmed: 28603546
Doc Ophthalmol. 2017 Oct;135(2):107-119
pubmed: 28702796
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2003 Mar;22(2):201-51
pubmed: 12604058
Br J Ophthalmol. 2005 Mar;89(3):340-4
pubmed: 15722316
BMC Ophthalmol. 2012 Aug 06;12:36
pubmed: 22866948
Doc Ophthalmol. 2015 Jun;130(3):197-209
pubmed: 25616700
Doc Ophthalmol. 2014 Jun;128(3):179-89
pubmed: 24615593
Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jan;133(1):29-39
pubmed: 11755837
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Dec;120(12):1672-81
pubmed: 12470141
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 Apr;96(4):554-9
pubmed: 22116959
Doc Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;132(1):27-37
pubmed: 26792427
Pituitary. 2015 Oct;18(5):598-603
pubmed: 25349031
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012 Nov;23(6):497-505
pubmed: 23047167
BMC Ophthalmol. 2012 Aug 02;12:34
pubmed: 22856337
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Jan;45(1):24-32
pubmed: 27083150
Ophthalmology. 2016 May;123(5):939-49
pubmed: 26891880
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Aug;48(8):3662-8
pubmed: 17652736
Doc Ophthalmol. 2012 Aug;125(1):1-9
pubmed: 22476612

Auteurs

Mostafa EmadEldeen Hussien Mohamed Afify (MEHM)

Ophthalmology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Randa Hesham Ali Abdelgawad (RHA)

Ophthalmology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Momen Mahmoud Hamdi (MM)

Ophthalmology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Amany Abd El-Fattah El-Shazly (AAE)

Ophthalmology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Mohamed Adel Abdelshafik (MA)

Ophthalmology Department, Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Classifications MeSH