Serkan Aksu, Adnan Kurt, Ahmet Zihni Soyata, Kardelen Türkü Saçar, Semih Taşdelen, Sacit Karamürsel

Elektroretinografi ve Görsel Uyarılmış Potansiyel Ölçümlerinde Zenon ve LED Işık Kaynaklarının Karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Elektroretinografi (ERG) ve görsel uyarılmış potansiyeller (GUP) görsel bir uyarana yanıt olarak retinada veya oksipital korteksteki primer görme alanında oluşan elektriksel etkinliğiölçen ve görme yollarını nesnel olarak değerlendiren önemli tanı araçlarıdır. Elektriksel potansiyellerin oluşturulması için zenon ya da ışık yayan diyot (LED) ışık kaynağı kullanılabilmektedir.Her iki ışık kaynağı da kullanılarak ölçülen ERG ve GUP kayıtlarını aynı örneklemde karşılaştıranbir araştırmaya rastlanmadığı için, bu çalışmada sağlıklı gönüllülerde zenon ve LED ışık kaynağıkullanılarak oluşturulan ERG ve GUP ölçümlerini karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmanın örneklemi 21–30 yaş aralığındaki 31 sağlıklı gönüllüdenoluşmuştur. LED ve zenon ışık kaynağı ile her iki gözden ayrı ayrı ERG ve GUP kayıtları alındı.ERG kayıtlarındaki “a,” “b,” ve GUP kayıtlarındaki N2, P2 dalgalarının gecikme süreleri ve genlikleri eşleştirilmiş t-testiyle karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: LED ışık kaynağıyla elde edilen ERG kayıtlarında zenon ışık kaynağıyla elde edilenkayıtlara göre a (p

A Comparison of Xenon and LED Light Sources in Electroretinography and Visual Evoked Potential Measurements

Aim: Electroretinography (ERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) are important diagnostic tools that measure the electrical activity occurring in the retina or the occipital cortex after visual stimuli and assess the visual pathways objectively. Xenon or light emitting diode (LED) light sources can be used to generate the electrical potentials. Because no previous study was found to compare ERG and VEP measurements generated by using both light sources in the same sample, this study aimed to compare ERG and VEP measurements using both LED and xenon light sources in healthy volunteers. Materials and Methods: The study sample comprised 31 healthy volunteers aged between 21 and 30 years. ERG and VEP recordings of both eyes were obtained separately by use of LED and xenon light sources. Latencies and amplitudes of the “a” and “b” waves in ERG and N2 and P2 waves in VEP recordings were compared using the paired t-test. Results: Amplitudes of the “a” (p

PDF

___

1. Frishman LJ, Wang MH. Electroretinogram of human, monkey and mouse. In: Levin LA (ed.), Adler’s Physiology of the Eye, 11th ed. New York: Saunders Elsevier; 2011: 480–501.2. Bach M, Hoffmann MB. Update on the pattern electroretinogram in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2008;85(6):386–95.
2. Nasser JA, Del Parigi A, Merhige K, Wolper C, Geliebter A, Hashim SA. Electroretinographic detection of human brain dopamine response to oral food stimulation. Obesity. 2013;21(5):976–80.
3. Holder GE, Celesia GG, Miyake Y, Tobimatsu S, Weleber RG, International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology: recommendations for visual system testing. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121:1393–409.
4. Vialatte FB, Maurice M, Dauwels J, Cichocki A. Steady-state visually evoked potentials: focus on essential paradigms and future perspectives. Prog Neurobiol. 2010;90:418–38.
5. Tobimatsu S, Celesia GG. Studies of human visual pathophysiology with visual evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117:1414–33.
6. Kantorová E, Žiak P, Kurča E, Koyšová M, Hladká M, Zeleňák K ve ark. Visual evoked potential and magnetic resonance imaging are more effective markers of multiple sclerosis progression than laser polarimetry with variable corneal compensation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:10.
7. Al-Eajailat SM, Al-Madani Senior MV. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and visual evoked potential in management of optic neuritis. Pan Afr Med J. 2014;17:54.
8. Wyatt-McElvain KE, Arruda JE, Rainey VR. Reliability of the Flash Visual Evoked Potential P2: DoubleStimulation Study. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2018;43:153–9.
9. Kooi KA, Bagchi BK. Visual evoked responses in man: normative data. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964;112:254–69.
10. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin S. Delayed evoked responses in optic neuritis. Lancet. 1972;1:982–5.
11. McCulloch D, Marmor M, Brigell M, Hamilton R, Holder G, Tzekov R ve ark. ISCEV Standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Documenta Ophthalmologica. 2014;130(1):1–12.
12. Odom JV, Bach M, Brigell M, Holder GE, McCulloch DL, Mizota A ve ark. ISCEV Standard for clinical visual evoked potentials: (2016 update). Doc Ophthalmol. 2016;133:1–9.
13. Kothari R, Bokariya P, Singh S, Singh R. A comprehensive review on methodologies employed for visual evoked potentials. Scientifica. 2016:9852194.
14. Gauvin M, Lina JM, Lachapelle P. Advance in ERG analysis: from peak time and amplitude to frequency, power, and energy. Biomed Res Int. 2014:246096.
15. Shaw NA. Auditory potentials elicited by the grass photic stimulator in the rat. Physiol Behav. 1992;52:401–3.
16. Herr DW, Vo KT, King D, Boyes WK. Possible confounding effects of strobe “clicks” on flash evoked potentials in rats. Physiol Behav. 1996;59:325–40.
17. American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Guideline 9B: Guidelines on Visual Evoked Potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;23:138–56.
18. Lucchese F, Mecacci L. Visual evoked potentials and heart rate during white noise stimulation. Int J Neurosci. 1999;97:109–14.
19. Costa e Silva I, Wang AD, Symon L. The application of flash visual evoked potentials during operations on the anterior visual pathways. Neurol Res. 1985;7:11–6.
20. Hughes JR, Fino JJ, Hart L. The visual evoked potentials to the light emitting diode compared to the flash and pattern reversal stimulus. Int J Neurosci. 1989:47:359– 66.
21. Pratt H, Martin W, Bleich N, Zaaroor M, Schacham S. A high-intensity, goggle-mounted flash stimulator for short-latency visual evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;92(5):469–72.
22. Pratt H, Bleich N, Martin WH.Short latency visual evoked potentials to flashes from light-emitting diodes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;96:502–8.
23. Mizunoya S, Kuniyoshi K, Arai M, Tahara K, Hirose T. Electroretinogram contact lens electrode with tricolor light-emitting diode. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79:497–500.
24. Link B, Rühl S, Peters A, Jünemann A, Horn FK. Pattern reversal ERG and VEP--comparison of stimulation by LED, monitor and a Maxwellian-view system. Doc Ophthalmol. 2006;112:1–11.
25. Nilsson BY. Visual evoked responses in multiple sclerosis: comparison of two methods for pattern reversal. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1978;41(6):499–504.
26. Czopf J. Flash and pattern presentation and pattern reversal evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis. Doc Ophthalmol. 1985;59(2):129–41.
27. American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Guideline 5: Guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol 2006:23:107–10.
28. Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J. Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J. 1973;4(5893):661–4.
29. Givre SJ, Arezzo JC, Schroeder CE. Effects of wavelength on the timing and laminar distribution of illuminance-evoked activity in macaque V1. Vis Neurosci. 1995;12:229–39.
30. Farrell DF, Leeman S, Ojemann GA. Study of the human visual cortex: direct cortical evoked potentials and stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;24:1–10.
31. Subramanian SK, Gaur GS, Narayan SK. Low luminance/eyes closed and monochromatic stimulations reduce variability of flash visual evoked potential latency. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2013;16:614–8.