Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.55(2) > 1009879

TOOLS
Kim, Jang, and Cho: Correlation Between the Visual Field Test and Multifocal Electroretinogram in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2014;55(2):202-208.

Published online: 7 September 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2014.55.2.202

Correlation Between the Visual Field Test and Multifocal Electroretinogram in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy

Jeong Kyu Kim, MD, Ji Hye Jang, MD, Young Wook Cho, MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Daegu Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Korea

Address reprint requests to Young Wook Cho, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Daegu Fatima Hospital, #99 Ayang-ro, Dong-gu, Daegu 701-724, Korea, Tel: 82-53-940-7140, Fax: 82-53-954-7417, E-mail: vitreo-retina@hanmail.net

Received 5 April 201317 September 2013       Accepted 20 December 2013

Copyright © 2014 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 macular function by a multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) in patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR), and to assess the correlation between responses of mfERG and the threshold of the visual field test (VF).

Methods

The records of patients with DR (16 eyes, 16 patients) and control subjects (14 eyes, 14 subjects) were retrospectively reviewed. mfERG and VF were divided into Ring 1, Ring 2 and Ring 3 at 6-degree intervals from the central macula. The correlation between the amplitude/peak time and the threshold of each ring was analyzed.

Results

In patients with DR, the amplitude was decreased in all areas, the peak time was delayed in Ring 2 and the threshold was decreased in Rings 2 and 3, compared to control subjects. The amplitude of mfERG and the threshold of VF showed statistically significant positive correlations in Rings 2 and 3 (p < 0.05). The peak time of mfERG and the threshold of VF showed statistically significant negative correlations in Ring 3 (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The threshold of VF was more significantly correlated with the amplitude than with the peak time of mfERG in patients with DR. mfERG and VF were useful tests to assess the macular function, and alteration of macular function was early detected because two tests were conducted at the same time.

Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Multifocal electrogram, Visual field test

References

1. Ola MS, Nawaz MI, Siddiquei MM. . Recent advances in un-derstanding the biochemical and molecular mechanism of diabetic retinopathy. J Diabetes Complications. 2012; 26:56–64.
crossref
2. Frank RN.Etiologic mechanisms in diabetic retinopathy. Ryan SJ, Retina Schachat AP., editors4th ed.Los Angeles: Mosby;2006. v. 2. chap. 66.
3. Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Chin HS, Moon YS.Effect of PRP on visual acuity, visual field and subjective symptoms in very severe NPDR. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2545–52.
4. Lee BH, Cho YW.Quantitative analysis of diabetic macular edema by optical coherence tomography. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1858–64.
5. Ito H, Horii T, Nishijima K. . Association between fluorescein leakage and optical coherence tomographic characteristics of mi-croaneurysms in diabetic retinopathy. Retina. 2013; 33:732–9.
crossref
6. Hood DC.Assessing retinal function with the multifocal technique. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2000; 19:607–46.
crossref
7. Sutter EE, Dodsworth-Feldman B, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G.Simultaneous multifocal ERGs in diseased retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1986; 27:301–2.
8. Lung JC, Swann PG, Wong DS, Chan HH.Global flash multifocal electroretinogram: early detection of local functional changes and its correlations with optical coherence tomography and visual field tests in diabetic eyes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2012; 125:123–35.
crossref
9. Hood DC, Zhang X.Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visu-al fields: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2000; 100(2-3):115–37.
10. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M. et al. International Society For Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol. 2012; 124:1–13.
11. Harris A, Bingaman D, Ciulla TA, Martin B.Retinal and choroidal blood flow in health and disease. Ryan SJ, Schachat AP, editors. Retina. 4th ed.Los Angeles: Mosby;2006. v. 1:chap. 5.
crossref
12. Hood DC, Frishman LJ, Saszik S, Viswanathan S.Retinal origins of the primate multifocal ERG: implications for the human response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:1673–85.
13. Hood DC, Greenstein V, Frishman L. . Identifying inner retinal contributions to the human multifocal ERG. Vision Res. 1999; 39:2285–91.
crossref
14. Miller RF.The physiology and morphology of the vertebrate retina. Ryan SJ, Schachat AP, editors. Retina. 4th ed.Los Angeles: Mosby;2006. v. 1:chap. 9.
crossref
15. Kim SJ, Yu HG.The clinical applications of multifocal electro-retinogram in diabetic retinopathy. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:64–8.
16. Kondo M, Miyake Y, Horiguchi M. . Clinical evaluation of multifocal electroretinogram. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995; 36:2146–50.
17. Fine BS, Brucker AJ.Macular edema and cystoid macular edema. Am J Ophthalmol. 1981; 92:466–81.
crossref
18. Roth JA.Central visual field in diabetes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969; 53:16–25.
crossref
19. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Agardh E.Visual fields correlate better than visual acuity to severity of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetologia. 2005; 48:2494–500.
crossref
20. Federman JL, Lloyd J.Automated static perimetry to evaluate dia-betic retinopathy. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1984; 82:358–70.
21. Pahor D.Automated static perimetry as a screening method for evaluation of retinal perfusion in diabetic retinopathy. Int Ophthalmol. 1997-1998; 21:305–9.
22. Greenstein VC, Holopigian K, Hood DC. . The nature and ex-tent of retinal dysfunction associated with diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:3643–54.

Figure 1.
Threshold plot of automated perimetry (dB) was divided into Ring 1, Ring 2, Ring 3 by every 6 degree.
jkos-55-202f1.tif
Figure 2.
Trace arrays of mfERG (A) show the result on 61 point of 30 degree on central visual field. Ring average of mfERG (B) show mean amplitude and peak time of concentric ring.
jkos-55-202f2.tif
Figure 3.
Relationship between the threshold of AVF and log (amplitude) of mfERG in DR group (A) and normal group (C). Relationship between the threshold of AVF and log (peak time) of mfERG in DR group (B) and normal group (D).
jkos-55-202f3.tif
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of the patients
  DR Normal p-value*
Number (eyes) 16 (16) 14 (14)  
Sex (male/female) 10/6 9/5 0.846
Age (years) 55.86 ± 12.36 56.14 ± 11.36 0.825
BCVA (log MAR) 0.13 ± 0.13 0.01 ± 0.04 0.201
IOP (mm Hg) 14.00 ± 2.34 13.64 ± 2.59 0.699
SE (diopter) -0.81 ± 1.43 -0.48 ± 1.03 0.215
CPT (um) 226.63 ± 50.42 214.00 ± 24.25 0.094

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

BCVA = best-corrected visual acuity; IOP = intraocular pressure; SE = spherical equivalent; CPT = center point thickness; DR = diabetic retinopathy.

* Statistically significant with independent samples t-test (p < 0.05).

Table 2.
Comparison of the threshold (dB) of AVF in diabetic retinopathy group and normal group
  Ring 1 Ring 2 Ring 3
DR 26.50 ± 2.97 24.60 ± 4.48 20.19 ± 4.09
Normal 30.18 ± 1.79 28.84 ± 2.16 26.10 ± 1.90
p-value 0.268 0.039* 0.003*

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Statistically significant with independent samples t-test (p < 0.05).

Table 3.
Comparison of the amplitude (nV/deg2) of mfERG in diabetic retinopathy group and normal group
  Ring 1 Ring 2 Ring 3
DR (log unit) 46.08 ± 11.55 (1.65 ± 0.12) 30.64 ± 6.51 (1.48 ± 0.09) 20.36 ± 3.46 (1.30 ± 0.08)
Noraml (log unit) 92.11 ± 22.20 (1.98 ± 0.12) 62.16 ± 20.16 (1.77 ± 0.15) 45.72 ± 8.17 (1.65 ± 0.08)
p-value 0.016* 0.000* 0.001*

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Statistically significant with independent samples t-test (p < 0.05).

Table 4.
Comparison of the peak time (msec) of mfERG in diabetic retinopathy group and normal group
  Ring 1 Ring 2 Ring 3
DR (log unit) 38.06 ± 4.98 (1.58 ± 0.06) 39.45 ± 3.30 (1.59 ± 0.04) 39.43 ± 2.62 (1.59 ± 0.03)
Noraml (log unit) 37.17 ± 3.01 (1.57 ± 0.04) 36.67 ± 1.92 (1.56 ± 0.02) 37.84 ± 1.86 (1.58 ± 0.02)
p-value 0.387 0.012* 0.508

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Statistically significant with independent samples t-test (p < 0.05).

Table 5.
Relationship between the threshold of AVF and responses of mfERG in diabetic retinopathy group
R1 mfERG
 R2 mfERG
 R3 mfERG
Amp* Pe.T† Amp Pe.T Amp Pe.T
AVF r=0.401‡ r=-0.219‡ AVF r=0.779 r=-0.276 AVF r=0.578 r=-0.638
(p=0.124) (p=0.416) (p=0.001§) (p=0.214) (p=0.043§) (p=0.008§)

* log (amplitude)

† log (peak time)

‡ Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Pearson’s correlation was statistically significant, as absolute value of r was close to 1

§ Statistically significant with Pearson’s correlation (p < 0.05).

Table 6.
Relationship between the threshold of AVF and responses of mfERG in normal group
R1 mfERG
 R2 mfERG
 R3 mfERG
Amp* Pe.T† Amp Pe.T Amp Pe.T
AVF r=0.732‡ r=-0.279 AVF r=0.530 r=-0.021 AVF r=0.568 r=-0.175
(p=0.003§) (p=0.335) (p=0.045§) (p=0.944) (p=0.043§) (p=0.550)

* log (amplitude)

† log (peak time)

‡ Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Pearson’s correlation was statistically significant, as absolute value of r was close to 1

§ Statistically significant with Pearson’s correlation coefficient (p < 0.05).

TOOLS
Similar articles