Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jeffrey G Odel

Publications and source records attributed to Jeffrey G Odel.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

The effects of retinal abnormalities on the multifocal visual evoked potential.

PURPOSE: To examine the effects on the amplitude and latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential (mfVEP) in retinal diseases associated with depressed multifocal electroretinograms (mfERG). METHODS: Static automated perimetry (SAP), mfERGs, and mfVEPs were obtained from 15 individuals seen by neuro-ophthalmologists and diagnosed with retinal disease based on funduscopic examination, visual field, and mfERG. Optic neuropathy was ruled out in all cases. Diagnoses included autoimmune retinopathy (n = 3), branch retinal arterial occlusion (n = 3), branch retinal vein occlusion (n = 1), vitamin A deficiency (n = 1), digoxin/age-related macular degeneration (n = 1), multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (n = 1), and nonspecific retinal disease (n = 5). Patients were selected from a larger group based on abnormal mfERG amplitudes covering a diameter of 20 degrees or greater. RESULTS: Fourteen (93%) of 15 patients showed significant mfVEP delays, as determined by either mean latency or the probability of a cluster of delayed local responses. Thirteen of 15 patients had normal mfVEP amplitudes in regions corresponding to markedly reduced or nonrecordable mfERG responses. These findings can be mimicked in normal individuals by viewing the display through a neutral-density filter. CONCLUSIONS: Retinal diseases can result in mfVEPs of relatively normal amplitudes, often with delays, in regions showing decreased mfERG responses and visual field sensitivity loss. Consequently, a retinal problem can be missed, or dismissed as functional, if a diagnosis is based on an mfVEP of normal or near-normal amplitude. Further, in patients with marked mfVEP delays, a retinal problem could be confused with optic neuritis, especially in a patient with a normal appearing fundus.

Adult↗

The pattern electroretinogram in glaucoma patients with confirmed visual field deficits.

PURPOSE: To better understand the relationship between the amplitude of the pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and visual loss, measured with static automated perimetry. METHODS: Transient PERGs were recorded in 15 patients (31-77 years) and 16 normal individuals (26-65 years). An eye was considered to have glaucomatous damage only if there was an abnormal disc, an abnormal 24-2 Humphrey visual field result (pattern stand deviation, glaucoma hemifield test, and cluster) and an abnormal multifocal visual evoked potential. All the worse (more affected) eyes of the patients and six of the better eyes met these criteria. The N95 amplitude of the PERG was measured from the positive peak (P50) at approximately 50 ms to the trough at approximately 95 ms. The ratio of N95 to P50-the N95 amplitude divided by the P50 amplitude-was also measured. RESULTS: First, the PERG was within normal limits for 4 (26.7%) of the worse eyes. Overall, 6 (28.6%) of the 21 eyes that met the criteria for glaucomatous damage had normal PERGs on both PERG measures. Because the normal individuals were younger than the patients, an even larger number of normal PERGs might be expected with an age-appropriate control group. Second, the N95 amplitude was nonlinearly related to visual field sensitivity when sensitivity was plotted on a linear plot. Small field losses were associated with disproportionately large losses in PERG amplitude. Third, the PERG from both eyes of a patient were very similar, even when the visual fields suggested very different levels of damage. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the view that very early damage can affect the PERG, even before the visual field shows a loss. At the same time, it is clear that patients with clear glaucomatous damage can have normal-appearing PERGs. An explanation is proposed to account for these findings.

Adult↗

Auto-immune-like cone dystrophy.

PURPOSE: To describe rapid loss of cone vision in an adult due to putative auto-immune rejection. METHODS: Clinical and electrophysiological examination, including full-field and multi-focal electroretinograms (ERGs), were used to assess retinal function. Serum was analyzed for antibodies to retinal antigens. RESULTS: The patient lost cone vision in the course of several months while rod vision remained unaffected. Initially short wavelength (S) cone function appeared more resistant to the degeneration. Cancer associated retinal antibodies were present in the sera of the patient but no cancer has been found. CONCLUSION: Rapid loss of cone function can occur in an adult without a concomitant neoplasm although serum antibodies to retinal antigens suggest an autoimmune cause.

Aged↗

Simultaneous occurrence of neuroretinitis and optic perineuritis in a single eye.

A 52-year-old woman presented with pain, decreased visual acuity, decreased color vision, and visual field loss in the OD. Fundus examination revealed optic disc edema and later a macular star figure consistent with neuroretinitis. Magnetic resonance imaging showed enhancement of the orbital optic nerve sheath and perineural fat suggestive of optic perineuritis. The patient was not treated. At 11 months, visual function and fundus examination had returned to normal. This unusual simultaneous occurrence of neuroretinitis and optic perineuritis suggests that these two entities may have a similar pathogenesis.

Female↗

The multifocal electroretinogram.

The multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) technique allows local ERG responses to be recorded simultaneously from many regions of the retina. As in the case of the full-field ERG, the ganglion cells contribute relatively little to the response, which originates largely from the outer retina. The mfERG is particularly valuable in cases in which the fundus appears normal, and it is difficult to distinguish between diseases of the outer retina and diseases of the ganglion cells and/or optic nerve. The mfERG can also help to differentiate among outer retinal diseases, to follow the progression of retinal diseases, and, with the addition of the mfVEP, to differentiate between organic and nonorganic causes of visual loss. However, because the difficulties encountered in recording and analyzing mfERG responses are greater than those involved in full-field ERG testing, mfERG testing is best left to centers with an electrophysiologist familiar with the mfERG test. Although this technique is relatively new and standards are still being developed, centers capable of recording reliable mfERG responses can be found in hundreds of locations around the world.

Electroretinography↗

The multifocal visual evoked potential.

With the multifocal technique, visual evoked potentials (VEPs) can be recorded simultaneously from many regions of the visual field. For the multifocal VEP (mfVEP), the patient views a display that typically contains 60 sectors, each with a checkerboard pattern. The display covers about the same retinal area as the 24-2 Humphrey visual field (HVF). However, due to the scaling of the sectors of the mfVEP display, the fields are sampled differently by the mfVEP and HVF. To assess local defects in the visual field, the mfVEP responses must be compared with normal controls. These comparisons require relatively sophisticated analyses and software. Whereas the mfVEP can be recorded relatively easily with the same equipment used to record multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs), the software needed to perform the analysis is not yet widely available. The mfVEP is valuable for ruling out non-organic visual loss, diagnosing and following patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis, evaluating patients with unreliable or questionable HVFs, and following disease progression. When combined with the mfERG, diseases of the outer retina (before the retinal ganglion cells) can be distinguished from diseases of the ganglion cells and/or optic nerve. The difficulties encountered in recording and analyzing mfVEP responses are greater than those involved in full-field VEP testing. Thus, in its current form, the mfVEP is best recorded and interpreted by ophthalmologists and electrophysiologists experienced with the technique. However, this technique is developing rapidly; advances in commercial hardware and software are expected in the near future.

Electroretinography↗

Visual field defects and multifocal visual evoked potentials: evidence of a linear relationship.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between spatially localized multifocal visual evoked potentials (mfVEPs) and Humphrey visual fields (HVFs) in patients with unilateral field defects. METHODS: Humphrey visual fields and mfVEPs were obtained from 20 patients with unilateral field losses due to either ischemic optic neuropathy or glaucoma. Monocular mfVEPs were obtained for each eye. The amplitude of the mfVEP responses was calculated using root-mean-square and signal-noise ratio measures. Estimates of the HVF loss in the same regions of the field used for the mfVEP were obtained by interpolating the 24-2 HVF data. RESULTS: Monocular mfVEP amplitude decreased with HVF loss, although small mfVEP signals were not uniquely associated with poor fields. On average, the monocular mfVEP was indistinguishable from noise for field losses between -5 and -10 dB, and good monocular mfVEP amplitudes were never associated with extensive visual field loss. The interocular ratio of the mfVEP amplitudes correlated well with the difference between the HVF values of the 2 eyes, and this correlation improved with increased signal-noise ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The monocular and interocular results were consistent with a linear relationship between the amplitude of the signal portion of the mfVEP response and linear HVF loss. One way to produce this relationship would be if both the signal in the mfVEP and linear HVF loss were linearly related to the percentage of local ganglion cells lost. The clinical limitations of the mfVEP technique can be understood by taking the signal-noise ratio, and the linear model proposed herein, into consideration.

Adult↗