Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variability of the multifocal electroretinogram based on the type and position of the electrode

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the wave amplitude of multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) measurements and discomfort from Dawson–Trick–Litzkow (DTL) electrode located on the cornea (cDTL) and on the conjunctival fornix (fDTL) and ERG-jet contact lens electrode (CL).

Methods

Thirty-six patients and 18 healthy volunteers were evaluated with three different methods (cDTL, fDTL and CL). Wave amplitude, number of artifacts, number of electrode dislocations and level of discomfort obtained with each electrode were compared. These variables were also compared between patients and healthy volunteers (control group). Comparisons between wave amplitudes were made using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Responses by the three tested electrode were better correlated (ICC) in patient (0.616–0.756) than in control groups (0.342–0.679). CL provided the highest wave amplitude in both groups (p < 0.005), but it was associated with higher discomfort (p < 0.001) and the highest rate of dislocations (72 and 100 % in control and patients, respectively). Looking at the differences obtained by each electrode between both groups, CL seems to be able to differentiate patient from control in the ring 1 of the mfERG. By contrast, fDTL gave the lowest wave amplitude in both groups, but it had the advantage to, apparently, discriminate between patients and control group in rings 1 and 2. cDTL produced more artifacts than the other electrodes in both groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Although wave amplitude measurements with different electrodes were correlated, they cannot be directly compared, so it is mandatory to create an appropriate normative database with each electrode. Despite providing the lowest amplitudes, fDTL seems to offer the best features to perform mfERG regarding discomfort, number of artifacts and diagnostic capability.

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. Sutter E, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in man. Vision Res 32(3):433–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heckenlively JR, Arden GB, Nusinowitz S, Holder GE, Bach M (2006) Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision, 2nd edn. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hood DC (2000) Assesing retinal function with the multifocal technique. Prog Ret Eye Res 19:207–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beeler P, Barthelmes D, Sutter FK, Helbig H, Fleischhauer JC (2007) Comparison of performance and patient satisfaction of two types of ERG electrodes. Klin Mobl Augenheilkd 224(4):265–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuze M, Uji Y (2000) Comparison between Dawtson, Trick, and Litzkow electrode and contact lens electrodes used in clinical electroretinography. Jpn J Ophthalmol 44(4):374–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yin H, Pardue MT (2004) Performance of the DTL electrode compared to the Jet contact lens electrode in clinical testing. Doc Ophthalmol 108:77–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohidin N, Yap MK, Jacobs RJ (1997) The repeatability and variability of the multifocal electroretinogram for four different electrode types. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 17(6):530–535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thimonier C, Daubas P, Bourdon L, Deral-Stephant V, Menu JP, Vignal R, Roux C (2008) ERG multifocal avec électrodes ERG-jet et Gold Foil chez le sujet normal: comparaison et reproducibilité. J Fr Ophthalmol 31(6):585–590

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell MG, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons J, Marmor M, McCulloch DL, Palmowski-Wolfe A (2012) ISCEV Standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124(1):1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley Classics Library, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Otto T, Bach M (1997) Reproducibility of the pattern electroretinogram. Ophthalmologe 94(3):217–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Honda Y (1977) Some characteristics of the c-wave of ERGs recorded by a pair of electrodes on the cornea and sclera. Albrecht v Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophth 202:19–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McAllan A, Sinn J, Aylward GW (1989) The effect of gold foil electrode position on the electroretinogram in human subjects. Vis Res 29(9):1085–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feng Y, Simpson TL (2003) Nociceptive sensation and sensitivity evoked from human cornea and conjunctiva stimulated by CO2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44(2):529–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yoshii M, Yanashima K, Suzuki S, Okisaka S (2000) Artifact removal procedure distorts multifocal electroretinogram. Jpn J Ophthalmol 44(4):419–423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zaragoza P (2011) Aplicaciones clínicas de la electrofisiología ocular. Sociedad Española de Oftalmología, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chan HH, Ng YF, Chu PH (2011) Applications of the multifocal electroretinogram in the detection of glaucoma. Clin Exp Optom 94(3):247–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Curcio CA, Sloan KR, Kalina RE, Hendrickson AE (1990) Human photoreceptor topography. J Comp Neurol 300(1):5–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Keating D, Parks S, Evans A (2000) Technical aspects of multifocal ERG recording. Doc Ophthalmol 100:77–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clínica Eurocanarias Oftalmológica, León y Castillo, 211, 35004, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

    Ángel García-García

  2. Glaucoma and Neurophthalmology Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Carretera Colmenar Viejo km 9.100, 28034, Madrid, Spain

    Francisco José Muñoz-Negrete & Gema Rebolleda

Authors
  1. Ángel García-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco José Muñoz-Negrete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gema Rebolleda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ángel García-García.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speaker’s 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.

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

García-García, Á., Muñoz-Negrete, F.J. & Rebolleda, G. Variability of the multifocal electroretinogram based on the type and position of the electrode. Doc Ophthalmol 133, 99–108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9560-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-016-9560-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation