Klistorner Alexander, Fraser Clare, Garrick Raymond, Graham Stuart, Arvind Hemamalini
Save Sight Institute, Sydney Eye Hospital, University of Sydney, Macquarie Street, PO BOX 4337, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia.
Doc Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan;116(1):19-27. doi: 10.1007/s10633-007-9072-y. Epub 2007 Aug 7.
To compare performance of multi-focal and full-field Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP) in patients with optic neuritis (ON).
26 patients with unilateral ON were enrolled. Multi-focal VEP (MF VEP) was recorded using AccuMaptrade mark system. Four bipolar channels were analysed. Full-field VEP (FF VEP) was performed according to ISCEV standard using ESPION with frontal-occipital electrode placement. Pattern-reversal protocol was implemented with check size of 60' and field of view of 30 degrees .
For both tests amplitude and latency of affected eye were statistically different from non-affected eye. The asymmetry of amplitude and latency between two eyes was also very similar for both tests. Averaged Relative Asymmetry Coefficient of amplitude (RAC) for the FF VEP was 0.10 +/- 0.15 and for the MF VEP was 0.12 +/- 0.12 (P = 0.21, paired t-test). Averaged latency difference between affected and non-affected eyes was 13.0 +/- 12 ms for FF and 14.1 +/- 11.1 ms for MF VEPs (P = 0.14, paired t-test). Coefficient of correlation (r) of p100 component of the FF VEP and averaged MF VEP was 0.60 (P < 0.0001) for amplitude and 0.79 (P < 0.0001) for latency. Correlation improved when amplitude and latency asymmetry between two eyes was analysed (r = 0.81 and r = 0.92 respectively). Overall 73% of affected eyes were identified as abnormal by amplitude and/or latency of the FF VEP and 89% was considered abnormal when MF VEP was used. Analysis of individual cases revealed superior performance of MF VEP in detecting small or peripheral defects.
比较多焦视觉诱发电位（VEP）和全视野视觉诱发电位在视神经炎（ON）患者中的表现。
纳入26例单侧视神经炎患者。使用AccuMap商标系统记录多焦VEP（MF VEP）。分析四个双极通道。采用额枕电极放置的ESPION，根据国际临床视觉电生理学会（ISCEV）标准进行全视野VEP（FF VEP）检查。采用60'的方格大小和30度的视野进行图形翻转方案。
对于两项测试，患眼的振幅和潜伏期与未患眼在统计学上均有差异。两项测试中两眼之间振幅和潜伏期的不对称性也非常相似。FF VEP的振幅平均相对不对称系数（RAC）为0.10±0.15，MF VEP为0.12±0.12（P = 0.21，配对t检验）。患眼与未患眼之间的平均潜伏期差异，FF VEP为13.0±12毫秒，MF VEP为14.1±11.1毫秒（P = 0.14，配对t检验）。FF VEP的p100成分与平均MF VEP的振幅相关系数（r）为0.60（P < 0.0001），潜伏期相关系数为0.79（P < 0.0001）。分析两眼之间的振幅和潜伏期不对称性时，相关性有所提高（分别为r = 0.81和r = 0.92）。总体而言，73%的患眼通过FF VEP的振幅和/或潜伏期被判定为异常，使用MF VEP时这一比例为89%。对个体病例的分析显示，MF VEP在检测小的或周边缺陷方面表现更优。
