Phamornsak Thienprasiddhi

Multifocal visual evoked potential responses in glaucoma patients with unilateral hemifield defects

PURPOSE To determine whether the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique can detect damage to the visual system in the unaffected hemifields of patients with glaucoma and unilateral hemifield defects. DESIGN Experimental study. METHODS Monocular mfVEPs and achromatic automated perimetry (AAP) were obtained in both eyes of 16 patients with open-angle glaucoma and unilateral hemifield defects. The mfVEPs were obtained using a pattern-reversal dartboard array with 60 sectors; the entire display was 44.5 degrees in diameter. For each pair of mfVEP responses an interocular ratio of root-mean-square amplitude was calculated. These values were compared with the mean values obtained from 30 control subjects. Probability plots for MfVEP were derived. A cluster analysis was used to determine whether an mfVEP hemifield was normal or abnormal. RESULTS Three of 60 (5.0%) mfVEP hemifields from control subjects had significant mfVEP deficits based upon a cluster of abnormal points. Significant mfVEP deficits were detected in the affected AAP hemifield in 15 of 16 (93.8%) glaucoma patients and in 6 of 16 patients in hemifields with apparently normal AAP. The percentage of hemifields with abnormal mfVEPs, but normal AAP, was significantly higher for the glaucoma patients than for the controls (37.5% vs 5.0%, P <.001, chi square).In glaucomatous eyes with achromatic visual fields defects limited to one hemifield, the mfVEP technique can detect evidence of glaucomatous damage in the unaffected hemifield.

Detecting early functional damage in glaucoma suspect and ocular hypertensive patients with the multifocal VEP technique.

PurposeTo determine whether the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) technique can detect early functional damage in ocular hypertensive (OHT) and glaucoma suspect (GS) patients with normal standard achromatic automated perimetry (SAP) results. Patients and MethodsTwenty-five GS patients (25 eyes), 25 patients with OHT (25 eyes), and 50 normal controls (50 eyes) were enrolled in this study. All GS, OHT and normal control eyes had normal SAP as defined by a pattern standard deviation and mean deviation within the 95% confidence interval and a glaucoma hemifield test within normal limits on the Humphrey visual field 24-2 program. Eyes with GS had optic disc changes consistent with glaucoma with or without raised intraocular pressure (IOP), and eyes with OHT showed no evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy and IOPs ≥22 mm Hg. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained from both eyes of each subject using a pattern-reversal dartboard array with 60 sectors. The entire display had a radius of 22.3 degrees. The mfVEPs, for each eye, were defined as abnormal when either the monocular or interocular probability plot had a cluster of 3 or more contiguous points with P<0.05 and at least 2 of these points with P<0.01. ResultsThe mfVEP results were abnormal in 4% of the eyes from normal subjects. Abnormal mfVEPs were detected in 20% of the eyes of GS patients and 16% of the eyes of OHT patients. Significantly more mfVEP abnormalities were detected in GS patients than in normal controls. However, there was no significant difference in mfVEP results between OHT patients and normal controls. ConclusionsThe mfVEP technique can detect visual field deficits in a minority of eyes with glaucomatous optic disks and normal SAP results.