Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Офтальмология / Английские материалы / Pearls of Glaucoma Management_Giaconi, Law, Caprioli_2009.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
28.03.2026
Размер:
17.75 Mб
Скачать

180

D. C. Hood and R. Ritch

 

 

[5, 11]. While some of these patients are simply unable to produce reliable fields, others have functional (nonorganic) disorders [5, 11, 12, 25, 26]. In either case, the information from SAP should be discounted.

Occasionally, the SAP visual field is inconsistent with disc abnormalities because nonglaucomatous damage may be contributing to the field loss. In some of these cases, the latency of the mfVEP can signal the presence of another disease process, as mentioned above.

21.3.2.3  Visual Fields that Need Confirmation

The mfVEP can prove useful in confirming a questionable visual field defect prior to initiation or advancement of therapy.

Summary for the Clinician

››The mfVEP can detect glaucomatous damage before it is detected with standard automated perimetry (SAP). For other patients, SAP is more sensitive.

››The mfVEP is not a substitute for SAP.

››Patients in whom diagnosis by SAP and disc examinations is uncertain, a mfVEP test may be beneficial.

››When SAP field defects are questionable or absent, but present on SWAP or FDT, the mfVEP can provide confirmatory evidence. If there are defects in the same area, it suggests the presence of glaucomatous damage and the need for treatment.

››The mfVEP is helpful in patients with unreliable SAP fields or whose fields are inconsistent with disc appearance.

››Moderately prolonged latencies of mfVEP responses can signal the presence of retinal disease, while markedly prolonged latencies or increases in latency are associated with compressive tumors and multiple sclerosis.

››Because of the difficulties involved in recording and analyzing mfVEPs, we recommend that the test be performed in centers with the necessary equipment, expertise, and experience.

References

1. Hood DC (2003) Objective measurement of visual function in glaucoma. Cur Opin Ophthalmol 14:78–82.

2. Holder GE, Brigell MG, Hawlina M, et al.; International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision (2007) ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography – 2007 update. Doc Ophthalmol 114:111–6.

3. Brigell MG (2001) The visual evoked potential. In: Fishman, GA, Birch DG, Holder GE, Brigell MG (eds.) Electrophysiologic­ Testing in Disorders of the Retina, Optic Nerve, and Visual Pathway, 2nd edition (Ophthalmology Monographs)­ . San Francisco: The Foundation of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, pp. 237–78.

4. Baseler HA, Sutter EE, Klein SA, Carney T (1994) The topography of visual evoked response properties across the visual field. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 90:65–81.

5. Hood DC, Greenstein VC (2003) The multifocal VEP and ganglion cell damage: applications and limitations for the study of glaucoma. Prog Retin Eye Res 22:201–51.

6. Hood DC, Zhang X, Greenstein VC, et al. (2000) An intero­ cular comparison of the multifocal VEP: a possible technique for detecting local damage to the optic nerve. Invest Ophtha­ lmol Vis Sci 41:1580–7.

7. Goldberg I, Graham SL, Klistorner AI (2002) Multifocal objective perimetry in the detection of glaucomatous field loss. Am J Ophthalmol 133:29–39.

8. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Grigg JR, Billson FA (2000) Objective VEP perimetry in glaucoma: asymmetry analysis to identify early deficits. J Glaucoma 9:10–9.

9. Graham SL, Klistorner AI, Goldberg I (2005) Clinical application of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials in glaucoma practice. Arch Ophthalmol 123:729–39.

10.Fortune B, Hood DC (2003) Conventional pattern-reversal VEPs are not equivalent to summed multifocal VEPs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:1364–7.

11.Hood DC (2004) Electrophysiologic imaging of retinal and optic nerve damage: the multifocal technique. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 17:69–88.

12.Hood D, Odel JG, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal visual evoked potential (VEP): applications and limitations in neuro-ophthalmology. J Neuro Ophthalmol 23:279–89.

13.Klistorner A, Graham SL (2000) Objective perimetry in glaucoma. Ophthalmol 107:2283–99.

14.Seiple W, Holopigian K, Clemens C, et al. (2005) The multifocal visual evoked potential: an objective measure of visual field? Vision Res 45:1155–63.

15.Grippo TM, Hood DC, Kanadani FN, et al. (2006) A comparison between multifocal and conventional VEP latency changes secondary to glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:5331–6.

16.Hood DC, Chen, JY, Yang EB, et al. (2006) The role of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) latency in understanding optic nerve and retinal diseases. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 104:71–7.

17.Klistorner A, Graham SL, Martins A, et al. (2007) Multifocal blue-on-yellow visual evoked potentials in early glaucoma. Ophthalmology 114:1613–21.

18.Rodarte C, Hood DC, Yang EB, et al. (2006) The effects of glaucoma on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential. Br J Ophthalmol 90:1132–6.

21  Other Tests in Glaucoma: Multifocal Visual Evoked Potential

181

 

 

19.Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X (2000) Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:4032–8.

20.Semela L, Yang EB, Hedges TR, et al. (2007) Multifocal visual evoked potential in unilateral compressive optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol 91:445–8.

21.Chen JY, Hood DC, Odel JG, Behrens MM (2006) The effects of retinal abnormalities on the multifocal visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:4378–85.

22.Fortune B, Demirel S, Zhang X, et al. (2007) Comparing multifocal VEP and standard automated perimetry in high-risk ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:1173–80.

23.Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, Chu DH, et al. (2006) Detecting early functional damage in glaucoma suspect and ocular hypertensive patients with the multifocal VEP technique. J Glaucoma 15:321–7.

24.Hood DC, Thienprasiddhi P, Greenstein VC, et al. (2004) Detecting early to mild glaucomatous damage; a comparison of the multifocal VEP and automated perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:492–8.

25.Massicotte EC, Semela L, Hedges TR (2005) Multifocal visual evoked potential in nonorganic visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 123:364–7.

26.Miele DL, Odel JG, Behrens, et al. (2000) Functional bitemporal quadrantopia and the multifocal visual evoked potential. J Neuro Ophthal 20:159–62.

27.Klistorner AI, Graham SL, Grigg JR, Billson FA (1998) Multifocal topographic visual evoked potential: improving objective detection of local visual field defects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:937–50.