Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2002
[Ganzfeld and multifocal electroretinography in Malattia Leventinese and Zermatt Macular Dystrophy].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gerber Dominik M, Niemeyer Günter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To show the value of Ganzfeld electroretinography (ERG) in Malattia Leventinese (ML, or Hereditary Dominant Drusen) and Zermatt Macular Dystrophy (ZMD) and to illustrate multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) in 2 cases of ML.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 15 patients with ML and 14 with ZMD we recorded Ganzfeld ERGs along with clinical examinations. In two patients with ML, and an we also performed a mfERG and an automated and Goldmann perimetry. All patients had a genotypic confirmation of the respective disease. For ERG measurements, the UTAS-3000 system was used, the mfERG was recorded using the RetiScan system.
RESULTS: In ML, the visual acuity remained at 0.8 or higher until the 5 (th) or 6 (th) decade of life, followed by a rapid drop. In ZMD, the decrease in acuity began already in the 3 (rd) decade and followed a more continuous time course. The time course of the decrease of the ERG b-wave amplitudes was nearly identical for either disease. The mfERG showed in one case of ML a marked reduction in the macular response density but, in the second case, a normal density response pattern despite large degenerative changes at the posterior pole. In both of these patients, we found no visual field defects.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient history and clinical testing raised the suspicion of a hereditary macular dystrophy. By means of Ganzfeld and multifocal electroretinography the course of the disease could be observed. However, definite diagnosis could only be established by genetic identification.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 15 patients with ML and 14 with ZMD we recorded Ganzfeld ERGs along with clinical examinations. In two patients with ML, and an we also performed a mfERG and an automated and Goldmann perimetry. All patients had a genotypic confirmation of the respective disease. For ERG measurements, the UTAS-3000 system was used, the mfERG was recorded using the RetiScan system.
RESULTS: In ML, the visual acuity remained at 0.8 or higher until the 5 (th) or 6 (th) decade of life, followed by a rapid drop. In ZMD, the decrease in acuity began already in the 3 (rd) decade and followed a more continuous time course. The time course of the decrease of the ERG b-wave amplitudes was nearly identical for either disease. The mfERG showed in one case of ML a marked reduction in the macular response density but, in the second case, a normal density response pattern despite large degenerative changes at the posterior pole. In both of these patients, we found no visual field defects.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient history and clinical testing raised the suspicion of a hereditary macular dystrophy. By means of Ganzfeld and multifocal electroretinography the course of the disease could be observed. However, definite diagnosis could only be established by genetic identification.