Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society · 2001
The negative ERG is not synonymous with nightblindness.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cibis G W, Fitzgerald K M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To provide electroretinographic differentiation between 4 genetically distinct conditions associated with a negative. Schubert Bornschein type electroretinogram (ERG): Complete congenital stationary night blindness (cCSNB), incomplete CSNB (incCSNB), Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and a family with an autosomal dominantly inherited negative ERG.
METHODS: ERGs were recorded in all subjects according to the ISCEV standards. Additionally, a long-duration flash was used under photopic testing conditions to separate depolarizing (ON) and hyperpolarizing (OFF) bipolar cell contributions. Dark adaptometry was obtained in cooperative adult subjects.
RESULTS: We were unable to differentiate between these 4 genetically distinct conditions using the scotopic ERG response to the bright white flash only. The photopic, cone-derived ERG to both short- and long-duration flashes was more informative in making distinctions between these 4 disorders and understanding the possible mechanisms behind the abnormal ERG.
CONCLUSION: None of these disorders are progressive or a result of abnormal photoreceptor phototransduction. We suggest that they each represent a signal transmission error at the photoreceptor to depolarizing bipolar cell synapse that affects both rod and cone output. We propose that vision is spared in the latter 2 conditions because of timing errors in transmission as opposed to a complete signaling block, as seen in cCSNB.
METHODS: ERGs were recorded in all subjects according to the ISCEV standards. Additionally, a long-duration flash was used under photopic testing conditions to separate depolarizing (ON) and hyperpolarizing (OFF) bipolar cell contributions. Dark adaptometry was obtained in cooperative adult subjects.
RESULTS: We were unable to differentiate between these 4 genetically distinct conditions using the scotopic ERG response to the bright white flash only. The photopic, cone-derived ERG to both short- and long-duration flashes was more informative in making distinctions between these 4 disorders and understanding the possible mechanisms behind the abnormal ERG.
CONCLUSION: None of these disorders are progressive or a result of abnormal photoreceptor phototransduction. We suggest that they each represent a signal transmission error at the photoreceptor to depolarizing bipolar cell synapse that affects both rod and cone output. We propose that vision is spared in the latter 2 conditions because of timing errors in transmission as opposed to a complete signaling block, as seen in cCSNB.