Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, static automated perimetry, and optical coherence tomography findings for assessing visual pathways in patients with pituitary adenomas

  • Published:
Pituitary Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There have been no studies investigating the correlation between structural [thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT)] and functional [Humphrey visual field (HVF) or visual evoked potential (VEP) amplitude] measures of optic nerve integrity in patients with pituitary adenomas (PA).

Methods

Patients with PAs were recruited between September 2010 and September 2013. OCT, standard automated perimetry (SAP), and multifical VEP (mfVEP) were performed. Agreement between OCT, SAP, and mfVEP values in classifying eyes/quadrants was determined using AC1 statistics. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine relationships between structural and functional data.

Results

In total, 88.7 % of the eyes tested showed abnormal SAP findings and 93.7 % showed abnormal mfVEP findings. Only 14.8 % of the eyes showed abnormal OCT findings. The agreement between SAP and mfVEP findings was 88.9 % (AC1 = 0.87). The agreement between OCT and mfVEP findings was 24.2 % (AC1 = −0.52), and that between OCT and SAP findings was 21.5 % (AC1 = −0.56). The correlation values between RNFL thickness and the functional measurements were −0.601 for the mfVEP score (P = 0.000) and −0.441 for the SAP score (P = 0.000). The correlation between the mfVEP and SAP scores was −0.617 (P = 0.000).

Conclusions

mfVEP, SAP, and OCT provided complementary information for detecting visual pathway abnormalities in patients with PAs. Good agreement was demonstrated between SAP and mfVEP and quantitative analysis of structure–function measurements revealed a moderate correlation.

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

References

  1. Mete O, Asa SL (2012) Clinicopathological correlations in pituitary adenomas. Brain Pathol 22:443–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boonchai W, Vivienne CG, Fabio NK, Tomas MG, Jeffrey ML, Robert R, Donald CH (2009) A method to detect progression of glaucoma using the multifocal visual evoked potential technique. Doc Ophthalmol 118:139–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mousa MF, Cubbidge RP, Al-Mansouri F, Bener A (2014) Evaluation of hemifield sector analysis protocol in multifocal visual evoked potential objective perimetry for the diagnosis and early detection of glaucomatous field defects. Korean J Ophthalmol 28(1):49–65

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jayaraman M, Gandhi RA, Ravi P, Sen PL (2014) Multifocal visual evoked potential in optic neuritis, ischemic optic neuropathy and compressive optic neuropathy. Indian J Ophthalmol 62(3):299–304

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brecelj J (2014) Visual electrophysiology in the clinical evaluation of optic neuritis, chiasmal tumours, achiasmia, and ocular albinism: an overview. Doc Ophthalmol 129(2):71–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ml Jacob, Raverot G, Jouanneau E, Borson-Chazot F, Perrin G, Rabilloud M, Tilikete C, Bernard M, Vighetto A (2009) Predicting visual outcome after treatment of pituitary adenomas with optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 147(1):64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Klistorner A, Arvind H, Garrick R, Graham SL, Paine M, Yiannikas C (2010) Interrelationship of optical coherence tomography and multifocal visual-evoked potentials after optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(5):2770–2777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Laron M, Cheng H, Zhang B, Schiffman JS, Tang RA, Frishman LJ (2012) Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, standard automated perimetry and optical coherence tomography in assessing visual pathway in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler. 16(4):412–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garway-Heath DF, Poinoosawny D, Fitzke FW (2000) Mapping the visual field to the optic disc in normal tension glaucoma eyes. Ophthalmology 107(10):1809–1815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Psaras T, Milian M, Hattermann V, Gerlach C, Honegger J (2011) Executive functions recover earlier than episodic memory after microsurgical transsphenoidal resection of pituitary tumors in adult patients: a longitudinal study. J Clin Neurosci. 18(10):1340–1345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brummelman P, Elderson MF, Dullaart RP, van den Bergh AC, Timmer CA, van den Berg G, Koerts J, Tucha O, Wolffenbuttel BH, van Beek AP (2011) Cognitive functioning in patients treated for nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenoma and the effects of pituitary radiotherapy. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 74(4):481–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Punjabi OS, Stamper RL, Bostrom AG, Han Y, Lin SC (2008) Topographic comparison of the visual function on multifocal visual evoked potentials with optic nerve structure on heidelberg retinal tomography. Ophthalmology 115(3):440–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danesh-Meyer HV, Carroll SC, Gaskin BJ, Gao A, Gamble GD (2006) Correlation of the multifocal visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in compressive optic neuropathies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(4):1458–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanghai Pituitary Tumor Center, Department of Neurosurgery, HuaShan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 12# Middle Wulumuqi Road, Shanghai, 200040, China

    Nidan Qiao, Yichao Zhang, Zhao Ye, Ming Shen, Xuefei Shou, Yongfei Wang, Shiqi Li & Yao Zhao

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Eye and ENT Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 83 Fenyang Road, Shanghai, 200031, China

    Min Wang

Authors
  1. Nidan Qiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yichao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhao Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ming Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xuefei Shou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yongfei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shiqi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Min Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yao Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Min Wang or Yao Zhao.

Additional information

Nidan Qiao and Yichao Zhang have contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qiao, N., Zhang, Y., Ye, Z. et al. Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, static automated perimetry, and optical coherence tomography findings for assessing visual pathways in patients with pituitary adenomas. Pituitary 18, 598–603 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-014-0613-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-014-0613-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation