Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Electrophysiological and clinical tests in dry age-related macular degeneration follow-up: differences between mfERG and OCT

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the major causes of progressive and debilitating visual impairment in developed countries and has become a growing health and social issue that needs to be addressed. Imaging techniques and functional tests are useful to assess the degree of macular dysfunction and AMD progression. However, given the slow progression of the disease, it is necessary to identify which techniques are more sensitive for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with AMD.

Purpose

To study changes observed with both imaging techniques and electrophysiological tests in dry AMD-diagnosed patients during 2 years in order to identify the most sensitive technique.

Methods

Fundus photography, OCT (macular thickness and number of drusen), Pattern VEP (P100 wave), Pattern ERG (P50 wave) and multifocal ERG (central rings) were carried out in 30 patients that were diagnosed with dry AMD in both eyes. The tests were repeated 1 and 2 years later.

Results

No statistically significant changes were observed in visual acuity or in the severity of the disease throughout the study. OCT showed an increase in the number of drusen, as well as in macular thickness. As for the electrophysiological techniques, no significant changes were observed throughout the study in Pattern VEP or Pattern ERG. mfERG showed significant alterations. Statistical analysis showed that mfERG is more efficient in detecting changes throughout the experimental period.

Conclusions

OCT and mfERG are useful in the diagnosis and monitoring of dry AMD patients, whilst mfERG is the most sensitive technique to study the progression of this disease in short periods of time.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bressler NM, Silva JC, Bressler SB, Fine SL, Green ER (1994) Clinicopathological correlation of drusen and retinal pigment epithelial abnormalities in age-related macular degeneration. Retina 14:130–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group (1991) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study design and baseline patient characteristics. ETDRS report number 7. Ophthalmology 98(5 Suppl):741–756

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tam WK, Chan H, Brown B, Yap M (2004) Effects of different degrees of cataract on the multifocal electroretinogram. Eye 18:691–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Seddon JM, Sharma S, Adelman RA (2006) Evaluation of the clinical age-related maculopathy staging system. Ophthalmology 113(2):260–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sutter EE, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in man-I. The photopic luminance response. Vis Res 32:433–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marmor MF, Hood DC, Keating D, Kondo M, Seeliger M, Miyake Y et al (2003) Guidelines for basic multifocal electroretinography (mfERG). Doc Ophthalmol 106:105–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS et al (2008) ISCEV guidelines for clinical multifocal electroretinography (2007 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 116(1):1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Holder GE, Brigell MG, Hawlina M, Meigen T, Vaegan, Bach M (2007) ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography—2007 update. Doc Ophthalmol 114:111–116

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bach M, Brigell MG, Hawlina M, Holder GE, Johnson MA, McCulloch DL, Meigen T, Viswanathan S (2013) ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography (PERG)—2012 update. Doc Ophthalmol 126:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Tormene AP, Vaegan (2010) ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc Ophthalmol 120:111–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W, Hee MR, Flotte T, Gregory K, Puliafito CA et al (1991) Opticalcoherencetomography. Science 254(5035):1178–1181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Keane PA, Patel PJ, Liakopoulos S, Heussen FM, Sadda SR, Tufail A (2012) Evaluation of age-related macular degeneration with optical coherence tomography. Surv Ophthalmol 57(5):389–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gómez-Ulla de Irazazábal F, Marín F (1993) Drusas. In: Gómez-Ulla de Iranzazábal F, Marín Olmos F, Ramirez Sebastián JM, Triviño Casado A (eds) La mácula senil. Edika-Med, Barcelona, pp 95–114

    Google Scholar 

  14. Garcia-Garcia JG, Ruiz-Moreno JM, Holm K, Andreasson S, Lövestam-Adrian M (2013) Macular dysfunction in drusen maculopathy assessed with multifocal electroretinogram and optical coherence tomography. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1303–1309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gin TJ, Luu CD, Guymer RH (2011) Central retinal function as measured by the multifocal electroretinogram and flicker perimetry in early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(12):9267–9274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yavas GF, Küsbeci T, Inan UU (2014) Multifocal electroretinography in subjects with age-related macular degeneration. Doc Ophthalmol 129(3):167–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerth C, Hauser D, Delahunt PB, Morse LS, Werner JS (2003) Assessment of multifocal electroretinogram abnormalities and their relation to morphologic characteristics in patients with large drusen. Arch Ophthalmol 121:1404–1414

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Catalá-Mora J, Castany-Aregall M, Berniell-Trota JA (2005) Electrorretinograma multifocal y degeneración macular asociada a la edad. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 80:395–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berrow EJ, Bartlett HE, Eperjesi F, Gibson JM (2010) The electroretinogram: a useful tool for evaluating age-related macular disease? Doc Ophthalmol 121(1):51–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Elner SG (1999) Gradual painless visual loss: retinal causes. Clin Geriatr Med 15:25–46

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fine SL, Berger JW, Maguire MG, Ho AC (2000) Age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 342:483–492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gallego R, Dolz R, Diaz M (2012) Hacia una nueva clasificación de la degeneración macular asociada a la edad basada en la tomografía de coherencia de dominio espectral. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 87(8):247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chiappa KH, Ropper AH (1982) Evoked potentials in clinical medicine (first of two parts). N Engl J Med 306(19):1140–1150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vaegan, Billson FA (1986) Macular electroretinograms and contrast sensitivity as sensitive detectors of early maculopathy. Doc Ophthalmol 63(4):399–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tam WK, Chan H, Brown B, Leung KW, Woo V, Yap M (2006) Aging and mfERG topography. Eye (Lond) 20(1):18–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gerth C, Garcia SM, Ma L, Keltner JL, Werner JS (2002) Multifocal electroretinogram: age-related changes for different luminance levels. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240(3):202–208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Einbock W, Moessner A, Schnurrbusch UE, Holz FG, Wolf S, FAM Study Group (2005) Changes in fundus autofluorescence in patients with age-related maculopathy. Correlation to visual function: a prospective study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243(4):300–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fisabio Oftalmología Médica, C/Alfons Blat no 33 Manises, Valencia, Spain

    Emilio González-García, Concepción Vilela, Amparo Navea & Emma Arnal

  2. Unidad predepartamental de Medicina, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain

    Maria Muriach

  3. Facultad de Medicina y Odontología, Universidad Católica de Valencia “San Vicente Mártir”, Valencia, Spain

    Francisco J. Romero

Authors
  1. Emilio González-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Concepción Vilela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amparo Navea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emma Arnal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Muriach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francisco J. Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilio González-García.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that we have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

No animals at study.

Informed consent

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

González-García, E., Vilela, C., Navea, A. et al. Electrophysiological and clinical tests in dry age-related macular degeneration follow-up: differences between mfERG and OCT. Doc Ophthalmol 133, 31–39 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9545-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9545-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation