HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rodarte, C. Articles by Hood, D.C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Rodarte, C. Articles by Hood, D.C.

Evaluation of Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential Latency in Glaucoma

¹ Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY
² Ophthalmology, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
³ Ophthalmology, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, New York, NY
⁴ Ophthalmology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY

Commercial Relationships: C. Rodarte, None; E.B. Yang, None; T. Grippo, None; V.C. Greenstein, None; J.M. Liebmann, None; R. Ritch, None; D.C. Hood, None.

Support: NIH Grant EY02115, New York Glaucoma Research Institute

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the effect of glaucomatous damage on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP). In spite of the implications for neuroprotection, relatively little is known about the latency of the mfVEP in patients with glaucoma [1].

Methods: An early glaucoma group of 50 patients defined by a glaucomatous disc, an abnormal glaucoma hemifield test on automated perimetry (24–2 HVF), and a mean deviation > –8 dB and a normal control group of 50 subjects participated. In the glaucoma group, based on intraocular pressures, 25 patients were characterized as normal tension glaucoma (NTG), and 25 as high tension glaucoma (HTG). Monocular mfVEPs were obtained for both eyes of all subjects using the VERIS (EDI) system with a dartboard display of 60 sectors. Three channels of recording were analyzed using software previously described [2]. Monocular and interocular latencies were obtained using custom software and expressed relative to a normative group of 100 individuals [3,4]. The mfVEP latencies were analyzed in three ways: 1) average relative latency of all sectors, 2) percent of sectors with significantly delayed latencies, 3) presence of a cluster of sectors with significantly delayed latencies.

Results:On interocular analysis, both the HTG and NTG group showed a statistically significant increase in mfVEP latency with average relative latencies and percent delayed sectors of 4.4 ms & 9.1% (HTG) and 4.9 ms & 9.1% (NTG) compared to 3.1 ms & 6.0% (controls). On monocular analysis, only the HTG group showed a significant increase in latency with measures of 4.9 ms & 11.7% (HTG) as compared to 3.0 ms & 5.0% (NTG) and 1.8 ms & 6.0 % (controls). For a criteria of four delayed sectors at the 1% level, 16% of the HTG (p<0.05), 4% of the NTG, and 2% of the controls had clusters on monocular and/or interocular results.

Conclusions: Both glaucoma groups showed a small, but statistically significant, increase in interocular latencies compared to controls. Only the HTG group had a significantly increased monocular latency or positive cluster analysis. 1. Klistorner et al (2002) ARVO 2. Hood & Greenstein (2003) Prog. Ret. Eye Res. 3. Hood et al, in press. Doc. Ophth. 4. Fortune et al , in press. Doc. Ophth.

Keywords: electrophysiology: clinical

© 2005, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. For permission to reproduce any part of this abstract, contact the ARVO Office at arvo{at}arvo.org.