Limits...
Multifocal visual evoked potentials in amblyopia due to anisometropia.

Moschos MM, Margetis I, Tsapakis S, Panagakis G, Chatzistephanou IK, Iliakis E - Clin Ophthalmol (2010)

Bottom Line: There was a significant difference in the latency and amplitude of mfVEP between the amblyopic and fellow eyes.In contrast, there was no difference in mfVEP latency or amplitude between the fellow eye and normal control eyes.These results suggest that mfVEP may be used as an alternative objective method for diagnosis and monitoring of anisometropic amblyopia.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Athens, Greece. mosxosmix@ath.forthnet.gr

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To investigate multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) of the amblyopic and fellow eye in amblyopia due to anisometropia.

Methods: We recorded mfVEP in both eyes of 15 anisometropic amblyopic patients and 15 normal control subjects. The responses from the central 7.0 degrees arc of the visual field were measured, and changes in latency and amplitude were compared between the amblyopic, fellow, and normal control eyes.

Results: There was a significant difference in the latency and amplitude of mfVEP between the amblyopic and fellow eyes. The responses in the central region of the visual field (rings 1 and 2) had a longer latency and smaller amplitude in the amblyopic eye. In contrast, there was no difference in mfVEP latency or amplitude between the fellow eye and normal control eyes.

Conclusion: These results suggest that mfVEP may be used as an alternative objective method for diagnosis and monitoring of anisometropic amblyopia.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Box plots of data showing the difference of mean amplitude of multifocal visual evoked potentials in ring 1 (A) and ring 2 (B) in the amblyopic, fellow, and normal control eyes.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2921291&req=5

f3-opth-4-849: Box plots of data showing the difference of mean amplitude of multifocal visual evoked potentials in ring 1 (A) and ring 2 (B) in the amblyopic, fellow, and normal control eyes.

Mentions: The Kolmogorov and Smirnov method assumed that the data for both groups followed Gaussian distributions. The statistical analysis performed by using the unpaired t-test demonstrated that the retinal response density of ring 1 was significantly lower in the amblyopic eye (P < 0.0001). Conversely, the decrease in the parafoveal area (ring 2) was not statistically significant (P = 0.0333, Figure 3). The mean latency in the amblyopic eye was significantly higher in ring 1 than in the fellow eye (P < 0.0001). Conversely, the difference between the amblyopic and fellow eye in ring 2 was lower but not significantly so (P = 0.3175, Figure 4). Finally, there was no statistical difference in the values of multifocal electroretinography between the fellow and normal control eyes.


Multifocal visual evoked potentials in amblyopia due to anisometropia.

Moschos MM, Margetis I, Tsapakis S, Panagakis G, Chatzistephanou IK, Iliakis E - Clin Ophthalmol (2010)

Box plots of data showing the difference of mean amplitude of multifocal visual evoked potentials in ring 1 (A) and ring 2 (B) in the amblyopic, fellow, and normal control eyes.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2921291&req=5

f3-opth-4-849: Box plots of data showing the difference of mean amplitude of multifocal visual evoked potentials in ring 1 (A) and ring 2 (B) in the amblyopic, fellow, and normal control eyes.
Mentions: The Kolmogorov and Smirnov method assumed that the data for both groups followed Gaussian distributions. The statistical analysis performed by using the unpaired t-test demonstrated that the retinal response density of ring 1 was significantly lower in the amblyopic eye (P < 0.0001). Conversely, the decrease in the parafoveal area (ring 2) was not statistically significant (P = 0.0333, Figure 3). The mean latency in the amblyopic eye was significantly higher in ring 1 than in the fellow eye (P < 0.0001). Conversely, the difference between the amblyopic and fellow eye in ring 2 was lower but not significantly so (P = 0.3175, Figure 4). Finally, there was no statistical difference in the values of multifocal electroretinography between the fellow and normal control eyes.

Bottom Line: There was a significant difference in the latency and amplitude of mfVEP between the amblyopic and fellow eyes.In contrast, there was no difference in mfVEP latency or amplitude between the fellow eye and normal control eyes.These results suggest that mfVEP may be used as an alternative objective method for diagnosis and monitoring of anisometropic amblyopia.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Athens, Greece. mosxosmix@ath.forthnet.gr

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To investigate multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEP) of the amblyopic and fellow eye in amblyopia due to anisometropia.

Methods: We recorded mfVEP in both eyes of 15 anisometropic amblyopic patients and 15 normal control subjects. The responses from the central 7.0 degrees arc of the visual field were measured, and changes in latency and amplitude were compared between the amblyopic, fellow, and normal control eyes.

Results: There was a significant difference in the latency and amplitude of mfVEP between the amblyopic and fellow eyes. The responses in the central region of the visual field (rings 1 and 2) had a longer latency and smaller amplitude in the amblyopic eye. In contrast, there was no difference in mfVEP latency or amplitude between the fellow eye and normal control eyes.

Conclusion: These results suggest that mfVEP may be used as an alternative objective method for diagnosis and monitoring of anisometropic amblyopia.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus