Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2020
Isolated-check visual evoked potential: a more sensitive tool to detect traumatic optic neuropathy after orbital fracture.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tian Yanjie, Wang Yinhao, Liu Ziyuan, Li Xuemin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To establish a more sensitive diagnostic tool for traumatic optic neuropathy (TON), we explored the diagnostic efficacy of isolated-check visual evoked potential (ic-VEP) for TON in orbital fracture and compared ic-VEP with pattern-reversal visual evoked potential (P-VEP) testing.
METHODS: This was a prospective single-center study. A total of 137 eyes from 131 patients diagnosed between December 2016 and October 2019 with orbital fractures were included in the study. Injury history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), visual field, computed tomography (CT), P-VEP, and ic-VEP data were collected. Parameters of ic-VEP (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR]) and P-VEP (peak latency and amplitude of P100) were compared and diagnostic accuracy was analyzed.
RESULTS: TON was associated with worse BCVA than non-TON (median 0.52 versus 0.10 logMAR, P < 0.001). SNRs were negatively associated with the P100 peak latency while positively associated with the P100 amplitude. The sensitivity of ic-VEP for TON (79.6%) was higher than that of P-VEP (61.2%, P = 0.049), although this difference was not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Using ic-VEP and P-VEP together could increase sensitivity (87.8%). Maximum areas under curve were obtained using the SNR criteria of 1.3, 1.47, and 1.54 at 8%, 16%, and 32% depth of modulation, respectively.
CONCLUSION: ic-VEP was more sensitive than P-VEP in diagnosing TON, and a combination of the two examination tests was recommended. The use of ic-VEP as the new diagnostic standard technique for TON should be considered.
METHODS: This was a prospective single-center study. A total of 137 eyes from 131 patients diagnosed between December 2016 and October 2019 with orbital fractures were included in the study. Injury history, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), visual field, computed tomography (CT), P-VEP, and ic-VEP data were collected. Parameters of ic-VEP (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR]) and P-VEP (peak latency and amplitude of P100) were compared and diagnostic accuracy was analyzed.
RESULTS: TON was associated with worse BCVA than non-TON (median 0.52 versus 0.10 logMAR, P < 0.001). SNRs were negatively associated with the P100 peak latency while positively associated with the P100 amplitude. The sensitivity of ic-VEP for TON (79.6%) was higher than that of P-VEP (61.2%, P = 0.049), although this difference was not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Using ic-VEP and P-VEP together could increase sensitivity (87.8%). Maximum areas under curve were obtained using the SNR criteria of 1.3, 1.47, and 1.54 at 8%, 16%, and 32% depth of modulation, respectively.
CONCLUSION: ic-VEP was more sensitive than P-VEP in diagnosing TON, and a combination of the two examination tests was recommended. The use of ic-VEP as the new diagnostic standard technique for TON should be considered.