Korean J Ophthalmol.  2013 Aug;27(4):261-267. 10.3341/kjo.2013.27.4.261.

Clinical Usefulness of Binocular Multifocal Electroretinography in Patients with Monocular Macular Disease

• Kim JW
• Choi YJ
• Lee SY
• Choi KS

• KMID: 1705422
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2013.27.4.261

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the clinical usefulness of binocular multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) by comparing results with conventional monocular mfERG in patients with monocular macular disease.
METHODS
mfERG testing was conducted on 32 patients with monocular macular disease and 30 normal subjects. An initial mfERG was simultaneously recorded from both eyes with two recording electrodes under binocular stimulation. A second mfERG was subsequently recorded with conventional monocular stimulation. Amplitudes and implicit times of each ring response of the binocular and monocular recordings were compared. Ring ratios of the binocular and monocular recording were also compared.
RESULTS
In the macular disease group, there were no statistical differences in amplitude or implicit time for each of the five concentric rings between the monocular and binocular recordings. However, with binocular simulation, the ring ratios (ring 1 / ring 4, ring 1 / ring 5) were significantly reduced in the affected eye. In the normal control group, there were no statistical differences in any parameters between the monocular and binocular recordings.
CONCLUSIONS
Binocular mfERG could be a good alternative to the conventional monocular test. In addition, given that the test needs stable fixation of the affected eye during the binocular test, the reliability of the test results could be improved, especially for patients with monocular macular disease.

Keyword

Binocular; Macular disease; Multifocal electroretinography

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Electroretinography/*methods
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Vision, Binocular/physiology
Vision, Monocular/physiology
Visual Acuity/*physiology
Wet Macular Degeneration/*diagnosis/*physiopathology

Reference

1. Sutter EE, Tran D. The field topography of ERG components in man. I. The photopic luminance response. Vision Res. 1992; 32:433–446.

2. Ahn YS, Park TK, Ohn YH, Gwak HW. Multifocal electroretinogram abnormalities of central serous chorioretinopathy. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2265–2277.

3. Kang JH, Choi ES, Yoon JM, Yoon HS. Multifocal electroretinogram before and after epiretinal membrane surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:104–110.

4. Kim DK, Park TK, Ohn YH. Changes of multifocal electroretinograms after macular hole surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:1351–1360.

5. Lee KH, Chang MH, Ahn JH. Correlation between multifocal electroretinography and visual acuity after resolution of diabetic macular edema. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:29–34.

6. Sung MS, Park TK, Lee JH, Ohn YH. A correlation with retinal thickness using retinal thickness analyzer and the responses of multifocal electroretinogram in patients with diabetic macular edema. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1401–1409.

7. Karanjia R, Eng KT, Gale J, et al. Electrophysiological effects of intravitreal Avastin (bevacizumab) in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008; 92:1248–1252.

8. Chisholm JA, Keating D, Parks S, Evans AL. The impact of fixation on the multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol. 2001; 102:131–139.

9. Winn BJ, Shin E, Odel JG, et al. Interpreting the multifocal visual evoked potential: the effects of refractive errors, cataracts, and fixation errors. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89:340–344.

10. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, et al. ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol. 2012; 124:1–13.

11. Lyons JS, Severns ML. Detection of early hydroxychloroquine retinal toxicity enhanced by ring ratio analysis of multifocal electroretinography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143:801–809.

12. Maturi RK, Bleau LA, Wilson DL. Electrophysiologic findings after intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) treatment. Retina. 2006; 26:270–274.

13. Palmowski AM, Allgayer R, Heinemann-Vernaleken B, Ruprecht KW. Influence of photodynamic therapy in choroidal neovascularization on focal retinal function assessed with the multifocal electroretinogram and perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:1788–1792.

14. Chu PH, Chan HH, Leat SJ. Effects of unsteady fixation on multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006; 244:1273–1282.

15. Crossland MD, Culham LE, Kabanarou SA, Rubin GS. Preferred retinal locus development in patients with macular disease. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:1579–1585.

16. Ishiko S, van de Velde F, Yoshida A. Paradoxical improvement of visual acuity in macular disease. Curr Eye Res. 2010; 35:651–656.

17. Kabanarou SA, Crossland MD, Bellmann C, et al. Gaze changes with binocular versus monocular viewing in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:2251–2258.

18. Gundogan FC, Sobaci G, Bayraktar MZ. Intra-sessional and inter-sessional variability of multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol. 2008; 117:175–183.

19. Tuzson R, Varsanyi B, Vince Nagy B, et al. Role of multifocal electroretinography in the diagnosis of idiopathic macular hole. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:1666–1670.

20. Lyons JS, Severns ML. Using multifocal ERG ring ratios to detect and follow Plaquenil retinal toxicity: a review. Review of mfERG ring ratios in Plaquenil toxicity. Doc Ophthalmol. 2009; 118:29–36.

21. Friedman DS, O'Colmain BJ, Munoz B, et al. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122:564–572.

22. Raz D, Seeliger MW, Geva AB, et al. The effect of contrast and luminance on mfERG responses in a monkey model of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:2027–2035.

23. Kim CB, VerHoeve JN, Kaufman PL, Nork TM. Effects of reference electrode location on monopolar-derived multifocal electroretinograms in cynomolgus monkeys. Doc Ophthalmol. 2005; 111:113–125.

24. Fortune B, Johnson CA. Decline of photopic multifocal electroretinogram responses with age is due primarily to preretinal optical factors. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2002; 19:173–184.