Advertisement

Conventional perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology, and visual evoked potentials in the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis

Conventional perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology, and visual evoked potentials in the assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis

Eur J Ophthalmol 2005; 15(6): 730 - 738

Article Type: ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Authors

G. Corallo, S. Cicinelli, M. Papadia, F. Bandini, A. Uccelli, G. Calabria

Abstract

b>PURPOSE. To evaluate the diagnostic power of conventional, achromatic, automated perimetry (CAP), shortwavelength automated perimetry (SWAP), frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry, and visual evoked potentials (VEP) in a group of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) with or without a history of optic neuritis. METHODS. Thirty eyes of 15 patients (5 male, 10 female, average age 387 years) with confirmed diagnosis of MS underwent CAP, SWAP (Humphrey 750-II VFA, program central 30-2, full-threshold strategy), FDT perimetry (program N-30), and pattern VEPs. Sixteen eyes (53.3%) had no history of ocular involvement and a negative ophthalmologic examination. They were matched with a control group of 10 healthy volunteers (4 male, 6 female, average age 3110 years). The mean deviation (MD) and the pattern standard deviation (PSD) of the two groups were compared (t-test). Fourteen eyes (46.7%) had, on the contrary, a history of optic neuritis. Inside this group, the MD and the PSD of the three techniques were correlated (Spearman's rank test), in order to investigate whether any significant differences might be revealed by these techniques in pointing out the total amount of visual field damage. RESULTS. When comparing MS patients without signs or symptoms of ocular involvement and a control group, no significant differences were found for CAP MD, CAP PSD, and FDT PSD. Significant differences were found, on the contrary, for SWAP MD (p=0.0014), SWAP PSD (p=0.0001), and FDT MD (p=0.0001). When considering the MD and the PSD of the three techniques in the group of MS patients who had a history of optic neuritis, a significant correlation was found only between CAP MD and SWAP MD (r=0.0057), with a tendency by SWAP to reveal a higher rate of visual field loss. The other correlations were not significant. According to predefined criteria, the group of asymptomatic subjects had abnormal CAP in 1 eye (6.25%), abnormal SWAP in 9 (56.2%), abnormal FDT in 11 (68.7%), and abnormal VEPs in 7 (43.7%). The combined use of all techniques allowed us to identify silent optic nerve impairment in 15 (93.7%) eyes. CONCLUSIONS. Short-wavelength automated perimetry and FDT perimetry are two non-conventional perimetric techniques that were mainly developed for the early detection of glaucomatous damage. The results of this study demonstrate their efficacy also in detecting early visual field deficits in MS patients without clinical signs of optic neuropathy. Frequency doubling perimetry, in particular, proved to be an easy, fast, and sensitive technique in the assessment of patients with MS. Our results also suggest that subclinical visual involvement in MS can be better diagnosed using multiple (neurophysiologic and psychophysical) tests.

Article History

This article is available as full text PDF.

  • If you are a Subscriber, please log in now.

  • Article price: Eur 36.00
  • You will be granted access to the article for 72 hours and you will be able to download any format (PDF or ePUB). The article will be available in your login area under "My PayPerView". You will need to register a new account (unless you already own an account with this journal), and you will be guided through our online shop. Online purchases are paid by Credit Card through PayPal.
  • If you are not a Subscriber you may:
  • Subscribe to this journal
  • Unlimited access to all our archives, 24 hour a day, every day of the week.

Authors

  • Corallo, G. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
    Eye Clinic, Dept. of Neurosciences, Ophthalmology and Genetics, University of Genova, Genova -Italy
  • Cicinelli, S. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
    Eye Clinic, Dept. of Neurosciences, Ophthalmology and Genetics, University of Genova, Genova -Italy
  • Papadia, M. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
    Eye Clinic, Dept. of Neurosciences, Ophthalmology and Genetics, University of Genova, Genova -Italy
  • Bandini, F. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
    Neurological Clinic, Dept. of Neurosciences, Ophthalmology and Genetics, University of Genova, Genov
  • Uccelli, A. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
    Neurological Clinic, Dept. of Neurosciences, Ophthalmology and Genetics, University of Genova, Genov
  • Calabria, G. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
    Department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology and Genetic, University Eye Clinic of Genova, Genova - Ita

Article usage statistics

The blue line displays unique views in the time frame indicated.
The yellow line displays unique downloads.
Views and downloads are counted only once per session.

No supplementary material is available for this article.