Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2018
ERGs on the brain: the benefits of simultaneous flash retinal and cortical responses in paediatric cerebral visual impairment.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Handley Sian E, Thompson Dorothy A, Prise Katrina L, Liasis Alki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To highlight the importance of simultaneous flash electroretinogram (ERG) and visual evoked potential (VEP) recording to differentiate a true flash VEP response from an artefact caused by the intrusion of the ERG on a mid-frontal reference electrode in cases of severe cerebral visual impairment (CVI).
METHODS: We report an observational case series of four children with severe CVI who underwent simultaneous flash ERG and VEP recordings. Flash VEPs from Oz-Fz and lower lid skin ERGs referred to Fz were recorded simultaneously to Grass intensity setting 4 flash stimulation.
RESULTS: In all cases, atypical, but reproducible VEPs were evident. Comparison of the timing and waveform of the VEPs and ERGs showed the occipital responses were inverted ERGs and no true flash VEP was evident.
CONCLUSIONS: While ISCEV and neurophysiology standards do not require the simultaneous recording of the flash ERG with the VEP, these cases highlight the usefulness of this non-invasive technique particularly in suspected paediatric cerebral visual impairment to differentiate a true VEP from an artefact caused by ERG contamination.
METHODS: We report an observational case series of four children with severe CVI who underwent simultaneous flash ERG and VEP recordings. Flash VEPs from Oz-Fz and lower lid skin ERGs referred to Fz were recorded simultaneously to Grass intensity setting 4 flash stimulation.
RESULTS: In all cases, atypical, but reproducible VEPs were evident. Comparison of the timing and waveform of the VEPs and ERGs showed the occipital responses were inverted ERGs and no true flash VEP was evident.
CONCLUSIONS: While ISCEV and neurophysiology standards do not require the simultaneous recording of the flash ERG with the VEP, these cases highlight the usefulness of this non-invasive technique particularly in suspected paediatric cerebral visual impairment to differentiate a true VEP from an artefact caused by ERG contamination.