Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.51(10) > 1008668

TOOLS
Yoo, Park, and Yoo: Pattern VEP in Adult Amblyopic Patients Requested From Military Service
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2010;51(10):1392-1397.

Published online: 7 September 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2010.51.10.1392

Pattern VEP in Adult Amblyopic Patients Requested From Military Service

Woong Sun Yoo, MD1, Yeon Jung Park, MD1, Ji Myong Yoo, MD, PhD1, 2

1Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea

2Gyeongsang Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Ji Myong Yoo, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital #90 Chilam-dong, Jinju 660-702, Korea Tel: 82-55-750-8170, Fax: 82-55-758-4158, E-mail: yjm@nongae.gsnu.ac.kr

Received 4 January 2010       Accepted 30 May 2010

Copyright © 2010 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the pattern VEP in adult amblyopic patients seen in consultation for ophthalmic evaluation as a past of physical examinations for conscription.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed, 67 men, 20-year-old or older, who had pattern VEP done for the diagnosis of amblyopia from January 2004 to May 2009. P100 latency and P100 amplitude were analyzed.

Results

Thirteen patients were non-amblyopic, and 54 patients had amblyopia. Binocular amblyopia and monocular amblyopia were found in 23 and 31 patients, respectively. In the binocular amblyopic patients, four patients were hyperopic, seven patients were myopic, and 12 patients were astigmatic amblyopia. In the monocular amblyopic patients, 15 patients were anisometropic, 12 patients were strabismic, and four patients had organic amblyopia. The value of P100 latency and P100 amplitude were statistically significantly different between non-amblyopic and amblyopic eyes, with check size of 32×32. However, the types of amblyopia among the patients were not different at a statistically significant level. Visual acuity and P100 amplitude were significantly positively correlated.

Conclusions

VEP might be a useful tool for diagnosis of adult amblyopia, especially using a 32×32 check size. This tool may impart the ability to decide relationship between amblyopia and visual acuity by analyzing P100 latency and amplitude values.

Keywords: Adult, Amblyopia, Visual evoked potential (VEP)

References

1. von Noorden GK, Campos EC. Binocular vision and ocular motility. 6th ed.St. Louis: Mosby;2002. p. 246.
2. Wanger P, Nilson BY. Visual evoked response to pattern reversal stimulation in patients with amblyopia and/or defective binocular functions. Acta Ophthalmol. 1978; 56:617–27.
3. Chung W, Hong S, Lee JB, Han SH. Pattern visual evoked potential as a predictor of occlusion therapy for amblyopia. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2008; 22:251–4.
crossref
4. Lee SJ, Park S, Shin H. Pattern-VEP in child amblyopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:924–9.
5. Kriss A, Thompson D, Lloyd I, et al. Pattern VEP findings in young children treated for unilateral congenital cataract. Cottlier E, editor. Congenital cataract. Austin: Laudes;1994. p. 79–88.
6. Sokol S. Abnormal evoked potential latencies in amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983; 67:310–4.
crossref
7. Hoe JW, Kim CW, Kim SM. VEP and pattern ERG in adult amblyopes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1990; 31:1481–8.
8. Wanger P, Persson HE. Visual evoked response to pattern-reversal stimulation in childhood amblyopia. Acta Ophthalmol. 1980; 58:697–706.
9. Sokol S, Fishman GA. Electrophysiologic testing in disorders of the retina, optic nerve, and visual pathway. In electrophysiologic testing. San Francisco: American academy of ophthalmology;1990. p. 123–5.
10. Park HK, Kim MM, Hahn DK. Evaluation of VEP in optic nerve diseases and amblyopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:1568–73.
11. Feinsod M, Hoyt WF, Wilson WB, Spire JP. Visually evoked response: use in neurologic evaluation of posttraumatic subjective visual complaint. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976; 94:237–40.
12. Kramer KK, La Piana FG, Appleton B. Ocular malingering and hysteria: diagnosis and management. Surv Ophthalmol. 1979; 24:89–96.
crossref
13. Saitoh E, Usami EA, Mizota A, Fujimoto N. Comparison of visual evoked potentials in patients with psychogenic visual disturbance and malingering. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2001; 38:21–6.
crossref

Figure 1.
Correlation between visual acuity, and P100 amplitude and P100 latency by different check size. Visual acuity and P100 amplitude by check size 16×16 (A) and 32×32 (C) have positive correlation which is statistically significant (* p<0.05). Visual acuity and P100 latency by check size 16×16 (B) and 32×32 (D) have negative correlation which is statistically non-significant (p>0.05).
jkos-51-1392f1.tif
Table 1.
Causes of amblyopia and number of patients by diagnosis
Unilateral No. of pts. Bilateral No. of pts.
Anisometropic 15 Visual deprived
Strabismic Visual deprived 12 0 Hypertropic Myopic 4 7
Organic Total 4 31 Astigmatic Total 12 23
Table 2.
P100 amplitude and latency of pVEP in 26 normal control eyes
Check size Amplitude (μ V) Latency (ms)
16×16 5.29 ± 2.045 104.09 ± 5.586
32×32 5.38 ± 2.381 104.16 ± 5.234
Table 3.
P100 amplitude and latency between right and left eye in control group
Check size Side Ampllitude (μ V) Latency (ms)
16×16 Right 5.45 ± 2.464 103.59 ± 5.256
Left 5.14 ± 1.610 104.58 ± 6.070
P value 0.703 0.660
32×32 Right 6.05 ± 2.809 103.73 ± 4.780
Left 5.72 ± 1.718 104.58 ± 5.817
P value 0.158 0.686
Table 4.
P100 amplitude and latency of pVEP in 77 amblyopic eyes
Check size Amplitude (μ V) Latency (ms)
16×16 4.57 ± 3.166 112.56 ± 21.544
32×32 4.19 ± 2.628 113.14 ± 22.008
Table 5.
Interocular difference of P100 amplitude and latency between both eyes in normal control and monocular amblyopic group
Check size Group Difference of ampllitude (μ V) Difference of Latency (ms)
16×16 Control 1.42 ± 1.204 1.59 ± 1.145
Amblyopia 2.68 ± 1.891 10.92 ± 21.586
P value 0.012* 0.023*
32×32 Control 1.72 ± 1.591 2.05 ± 2.486
Amblyopia 2.97 ± 2.302 11.46 ± 23.008
P value 0.047* 0.032*

* P<0.05

Table 6.
Inte rocular ampl litude difference ratio of control and monoc ular amblyopic group
Check size Group IADR
16×16 Control 0.24 ± 0.227
Amblyopia 0.42 ± 0.246
P value 0.034*
32×32 Control 0.28 ± 0.219
Amblyopia 0.43 ± 0.215
P value 0.047*

* P<0.05 IADR = interocular amplitude difference ratio([P1-N1]-[P1′-N1′]/[P1-N1]) P1-N1 = amplitude of better eye P1′-N1′ = amplitude of worse eye

Table 7.
P100 amplitude and P100 latency between types of amblyopia
16×16
 32×32
P100 amplitude (μ V) P100 latency (ms) P100 amplitude (μ V) P100 latency (ms)
Visual deprive 4.63 ± 3.155 111.60 ± 20.834 4.34 ± 2.669 112.29 ± 20.159
Anisometropia 3.99 ± 2.717 113.27 ± 25.327 3.79 ± 2.141 114.11 ± 26.249
Strabismus 4.29 ± 2.419 117.70 ± 23.609 3.78 ± 1.720 119.10 ± 26.508
Organic 7.05 ± 6.200 105.60 ± 4.819 5.18 ± 5.719 101.33 ± 6.199
P value 0.387 0.758 0.724 0.554
Table 8.
The comparison of visual acuity with P100 amplitude and P100 latency
Visual acuity No. of pts. 16×16
 32×32
P100 amplitude (μ V) P100 latency (ms) P100 amplitude (μ V) P100 latency (ms)
0 ∼ 0.05 8 2.76 ± 1.754 118.58 ± 24.980 3.79 ± 1.630 118.61 ± 28.163
0.06 ∼ 0.1 5 1.68 ± 1.006 109.20 ± 11.171 2.46 ± 1.088 115.20 ± 11.090
0.15 ∼ 0.4 31 4.37 ± 2.895 119.42 ± 28.878 3.71 ± 2.570 119.04 ± 29.222
0.5 ∼ 0.7 33 5.65 ± 3.434 105.17 ± 7.463 5.00 ± 2.841 105.95 ± 8.113
TOOLS
Similar articles