» Articles » PMID: 21340609

MfERG Responses to Long-duration White Stimuli in Glaucoma Patients

Overview
Journal Doc Ophthalmol
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2011 Feb 23
PMID 21340609
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The intent of our study was to evaluate whether the response to a long-duration white stimulus in the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) is sufficiently sensitive to detect early retinal dysfunction in glaucoma. On-off mfERGs were recorded from 15 NTG and 15 HTG patients and compared with 14 control subjects. Recording parameters were the following: LED stimulus screen (RETIscan™), 100-ms stimulus duration, 200-ms stimulus interval, 11-min total recording time, stimulus matrix of 61 elements, frame rate: 70 Hz, Lmax: 180 cd/m(2), Lmin: 0 cd/m(2), and filter setting: 1-200 Hz. The second negative response following stimulus onset (N2-on), as well as following stimulus offset (N2-off), was analyzed as an overall response and in quadrants, as well as in 4 small central and four adjoining peripheral areas per quadrant. The latency of the N2-on was significantly delayed in HTG in all response averages tested, while in NTG this was only seen in the overall response and in the small central response averages (P < 0.05). The most sensitive measure in HTG was the latency of the N2-on of the small peripheral response average of the superior temporal quadrant with an area under the ROC curve of 0.881. For NTG, the most representative measure was the latency of the N2-on of the small central response average of the inferior nasal quadrant with an area under the ROC curve of 0.793. Our results showed that in stimulation with long-duration flashes, the second negative response following the on response, representative of the early PhNR, is affected in glaucoma where N2-on showed a latency delay in POAG patients. The latency delay of the N2-on was more prominent for HTG than for NTG.

Citing Articles

Novel Machine-Learning Based Framework Using Electroretinography Data for the Detection of Early-Stage Glaucoma.

Gajendran M, Rohowetz L, Koulen P, Mehdizadeh A Front Neurosci. 2022; 16:869137.

PMID: 35600610 PMC: 9115110. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.869137.


Is multifocal electroretinography an early predictor of glaucoma?.

Golemez H, Yildirim N, Ozer A Doc Ophthalmol. 2016; 132(1):27-37.

PMID: 26792427 DOI: 10.1007/s10633-016-9524-3.


Continuous-wavelet-transform analysis of the multifocal ERG waveform in glaucoma diagnosis.

Miguel-Jimenez J, Blanco R, De-Santiago L, Fernandez A, Rodriguez-Ascariz J, Barea R Med Biol Eng Comput. 2015; 53(9):771-80.

PMID: 25850982 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-015-1287-6.


Structural and functional changes in glaucoma: comparing the two-flash multifocal electroretinogram to optical coherence tomography and visual fields.

Ledolter A, Monhart M, Schoetzau A, Todorova M, Palmowski-Wolfe A Doc Ophthalmol. 2015; 130(3):197-209.

PMID: 25616700 DOI: 10.1007/s10633-015-9482-1.

References
1.
Fortune B, Wang L, Bui B, Cull G, Dong J, Cioffi G . Local ganglion cell contributions to the macaque electroretinogram revealed by experimental nerve fiber layer bundle defect. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44(10):4567-79. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.03-0200. View

2.
Palmowski A . Multifocal stimulation techniques in ophthalmology -- Current knowledge and perspectives. Strabismus. 2004; 11(4):229-37. DOI: 10.1076/stra.11.4.229.24312. View

3.
Hood D, Seiple W, Holopigian K, Greenstein V . A comparison of the components of the multifocal and full-field ERGs. Vis Neurosci. 1997; 14(3):533-44. DOI: 10.1017/s0952523800012190. View

4.
Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, Iarossi G, Galan M, SCULLICA L . Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41(8):2205-11. View

5.
Hood D, Greenstein V, Holopigian K, Bauer R, Firoz B, Liebmann J . An attempt to detect glaucomatous damage to the inner retina with the multifocal ERG. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41(6):1570-9. View