Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Significant correlations between photopic negative response, afferent pupillary defect, and mean defects of visual fields in asymmetric optic nerve disorders

  • Neurophthalmology
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 15 June 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

The photopic negative response (PhNR) is a negative wave following the b-wave of the photopic electroretinogram (ERG). The PhNR originates from the retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), and it can be used to assess the function of RGCs noninvasively and objectively. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the relative amplitudes (affected/normal eye) of the PhNR are significantly correlated with the degree of the relative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD) in eyes with unilateral or asymmetrical damage of the optic nerve.

Methods

The PhNRs of the full-field photopic ERGs were measured. In addition, videopupillography and automated perimetry were performed on 27 cases with asymmetrical optic nerve disorders including glaucoma. The differences of these assessments were expressed by the relative amplitudes of the PhNRs of the two eyes, the neutral density (ND) filter required to equate the amplitudes of the pupillary light reflexes between the two eyes, and differences of the mean defects (ΔMDs) of the sensitivities of the Humphrey visual fields. The correlations between these values were determined by linear regression analyses.

Results

The relative PhNR amplitudes were significantly and negatively correlated with the ΔMDs (R2 = 0.58, P = 0.0001). In addition, the relative PhNR amplitudes were moderately but significantly and positively correlated with the RAPDs (R2 = 0.36, P = 0.002).

Conclusion

The relative amplitudes of the PhNR of the affected eyes to the contralateral eyes indicate an asymmetric alteration of the RGCs, and they can be used to monitor the physiology of the RGCs objectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 15 June 2020

    The original publication of this paper contains mistakes.

References

  1. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Harwerth RS, Smith EL 3rd (1999) The photopic negative response of the macaque electroretinogram: reduction by experimental glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40(6):1124–1136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG (2000) The uniform field and pattern ERG in macaques with experimental glaucoma: removal of spiking activity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(9):2797–2810

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Colotto A, Falsini B, Salgarello T, Iarossi G, Galan ME, Scullica L (2000) Photopic negative response of the human ERG: losses associated with glaucomatous damage. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(8):2205–2211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Viswanathan S, Frishman LJ, Robson JG, Walters JW (2001) The photopic negative response of the flash electroretinogram in primary open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42(2):514–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gotoh Y, Machida S, Tazawa Y (2004) Selective loss of the photopic negative response in patients with optic nerve atrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 122(3):341–346. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.122.3.341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rangaswamy NV, Frishman LJ, Dorotheo EU, Schiffman JS, Bahrani HM, Tang RA (2004) Photopic ERGs in patients with optic neuropathies: comparison with primate ERGs after pharmacologic blockade of inner retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45(10):3827–3837. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Machida S, Gotoh Y, Tanaka M, Tazawa Y (2004) Predominant loss of the photopic negative response in central retinal artery occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol 137(5):938–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2003.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bremner FD (2004) Pupil assessment in optic nerve disorders. Eye (Lond) 18(11)):1175–1181. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lagreze WD, Kardon RH (1998) Correlation of relative afferent pupillary defect and estimated retinal ganglion cell loss. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 236(6):401–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004170050096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaback MB, Burde RM, Becker B (1976) Relative afferent pupillary defect in glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 81(4):462–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(76)90302-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lankaranian D, Altangerel U, Spaeth GL, Leavitt JA, Steinmann WC (2005) The usefulness of a new method of testing for a relative afferent pupillary defect in patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 103:200–207 discussion 20–208

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalaboukhova L, Fridhammar V, Lindblom B (2007) Relative afferent pupillary defect in glaucoma: a pupillometric study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85(5):519–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00863.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tatham AJ, Meira-Freitas D, Weinreb RN, Marvasti AH, Zangwill LM, Medeiros FA (2013) Estimation of retinal ganglion cell loss in glaucomatous eyes with a relative afferent pupillary defect. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 55(1):513–522. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-12921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Waisbourd M, Lee B, Ali MH, Lu L, Martinez P, Faria B, Williams A, Moster MR, Katz LJ, Spaeth GL (2015) Detection of asymmetric glaucomatous damage using automated pupillography, the swinging flashlight method and the magnified-assisted swinging flashlight method. Eye (Lond) 29(10):1321–1328. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rukmini AV, Milea D, Baskaran M, How AC, Perera SA, Aung T, Gooley JJ (2015) Pupillary responses to high-irradiance blue light correlate with glaucoma severity. Ophthalmology 122(9):1777–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wakakura M, Yokoe J (1995) Evidence for preserved direct pupillary light response in Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol 79(5):442–446. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.79.5.442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Utsumi T (1978) Open-loop infrared videopupillography—a preliminary report. Acta Soc Ophthalm Jpn 82(4):315–321

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ozeki N, Yuki K, Shiba D, Tsubota K (2013) Pupillographic evaluation of relative afferent pupillary defect in glaucoma patients. Br J Ophthalmol 97(12):1538–1542. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Machida S, Gotoh Y, Toba Y, Ohtaki A, Kaneko M, Kurosaka D (2008) Correlation between photopic negative response and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic disc topography in glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(5):2201–2207. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-0887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shen X, Huang L, Fan N, He J (2013) Relationship among photopic negative response, retinal nerve Fiber layer thickness, and visual field between normal and POAG eyes. ISRN Ophthalmol 2013:182021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/182021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Quigley HA, Addicks EM, Green WR (1982) Optic nerve damage in human glaucoma. III. Quantitative correlation of nerve fiber loss and visual field defect in glaucoma, ischemic neuropathy, papilledema, and toxic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol 100(1):135–146. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1982.01030030137016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kerrison JB, Buchanan K, Rosenberg ML, Clark R, Andreason K, Alfaro DV, Grossniklaus HE, Kerrigan-Baumrind LA, Kerrigan DF, Miller NR, Quigley HA (2001) Quantification of optic nerve axon loss associated with a relative afferent pupillary defect in the monkey. Arch Ophthalmol 119(9):1333–1341. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.119.9.1333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson LN, Hill RA, Bartholomew MJ (1988) Correlation of afferent pupillary defect with visual field loss on automated perimetry. Ophthalmology 95(12):1649–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(88)32962-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berkelaar M, Clarke DB, Wang YC, Bray GM, Aguayo AJ (1994) Axotomy results in delayed death and apoptosis of retinal ganglion cells in adult rats. J Neurosci 14(7):4368–4374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Li B, Barnes GE, Holt WF (2005) The decline of the photopic negative response (PhNR) in the rat after optic nerve transection. Doc Ophthalmol 111(1):23–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-005-2629-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Karanjia R, Berezovsky A, Sacai PY, Cavascan NN, Liu HY, Nazarali S, Moraes-Filho MN, Anderson K, Tran JS, Watanabe SE, Moraes MN, Sadun F, DeNegri AM, Barboni P, do Val Ferreira Ramos C, La Morgia C, Carelli V, Belfort R Jr, Coupland SG, Salomao SR, Sadun AA (2017) The photopic negative response: an objective measure of retinal ganglion cell function in patients with Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58(6):BIO300–BIO306. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tang J, Edwards T, Crowston JG, Sarossy M (2014) The test-retest reliability of the photopic negative response (PhNR). Transl Vis Sci Technol 3(6):1. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.3.6.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Duco Hamasaki, PhD, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, for discussions and for editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Opthalmology, Osaka Medical College, 2-7 Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan

    Takashi Okuno, Teruyo Kida, Tsunehiko Ikeda & Hidehiro Oku

Authors
  1. Takashi Okuno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teruyo Kida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsunehiko Ikeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hidehiro Oku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hidehiro Oku.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Osaka Medical College and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Statement of informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okuno, T., Kida, T., Ikeda, T. et al. Significant correlations between photopic negative response, afferent pupillary defect, and mean defects of visual fields in asymmetric optic nerve disorders. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258, 1821–1827 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04632-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04632-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation