Assessing nonsedated handheld cone flicker electroretingram as a screening test in pediatric patients: comparison to sedated conventional cone flicker electroretinogram

被引:8
|
作者
Osigian, Carla J. [1 ]
Grace, Sara F. [2 ]
Cavuoto, Kara M. [1 ]
Feuer, William J. [1 ]
Tavakoli, Mehdi [1 ]
Saksiriwutto, Piangporn [1 ,3 ]
Liu, Mu [1 ]
Capo, Hilda [1 ]
Lam, Byron L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miami, Leonard M Miller Sch Med, Bascom Palmer Eye Inst, Dept Ophthalmol, Miami, FL 33146 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Kittner Eye Ctr, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[3] Mahidol Univ, Dept Ophthalmol, Fac Med, Siriraj Hosp, Bangkok, Thailand
来源
JOURNAL OF AAPOS | 2019年 / 23卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.jaapos.2018.09.009
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
PURPOSE To assess the RETeval (LKC Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD) handheld electroretingram (ERG) device as a screening tool for cone dysfunction in pediatric patients by comparing it to conventional ERG. METHODS Patients scheduled for ERG under general anesthesia (GA) underwent three tests: (1) RETeval standard 30 Hz cone flicker ERG using skin electrodes prior to GA, (2) E3 Diagnosys (Diagnosys LLC, Lowell, MA) conventional complete standard protocol full-field ERG using bipolar contact lens electrodes and handheld stimulus under GA, and (3) repeat RETeval testing under GA. The 30 Hz cone flicker amplitudes and implicit times from the three methods were compared. Negative and positive predictive values were calculated by applying a previously established 5 mu V amplitude cut-off. RESULTS Thirty patients <= 18 years of age were enrolled. Impaired conventional ERGs were found in 18 patients. Compared to conventional ERG under GA, RETeval cone flicker amplitudes were smaller before GA (mean difference, -42.2 +/- 45.3 mu V) and under GA (-37.1 +/- 44.5 mu V), likely due to skin electrode; and implicit times were shorter before GA (-1.06 +/- 2.83 ms) and longer under GA (1.28 +/- 4.12 ms), likely due to GA. Comparing RETeval responses before and under GA, the amplitudes were lower (-3.05 +/- 6.82 mu V), and implicit times were shorter (-2.25 +/- 3.28 mu V) before GA. Overall, the positive predictive value of the RETeval was 85%; the negative predictive value, 90%. CONCLUSIONS The unsedated handheld RETeval 30 Hz cone flicker ERG is a feasible screening test for detecting cone dysfunction in pediatric patients. Full-protocol ERG is needed when screening ERG is reduced, equivocal, or clinically warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 36
页数:3
相关论文
共 6 条
  • [1] Comparison of Non-Sedated Cone Flicker ERG Screening Test and Sedated Conventional ERG in Children
    Osigian, Carla Jeannette
    Grace, Sara
    Cavuoto, Kara Marie
    Feuer, William J.
    Tavakoli, Mehdi
    Capo, Hilda
    Lam, Byron L.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2017, 58 (08)
  • [2] Evaluation of cone function by a handheld non-mydriatic flicker electroretinogram device
    Nakamura, Natsuko
    Fujinami, Kaoru
    Mizuno, Yoshinobu
    Noda, Toru
    Tsunoda, Kazushige
    CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 10 : 1175 - 1185
  • [3] Nonsedated handheld electroretinogram as a screening test of retinal dysfunction in pediatric patients with nystagmus
    Grace, Sara F.
    Lam, Byron L.
    Feuer, William J.
    Osigian, Carla J.
    Cavuoto, Kara M.
    Capo, Hilda
    JOURNAL OF AAPOS, 2017, 21 (05): : 384 - 388
  • [4] Comparison of spectral measures of period doubling in the cone flicker electroretinogram
    Kenneth R. Alexander
    Aparna Raghuram
    J. Jason McAnany
    Documenta Ophthalmologica, 2008, 117 : 197 - 203
  • [5] Comparison of spectral measures of period doubling in the cone flicker electroretinogram
    Alexander, Kenneth R.
    Raghuram, Aparna
    McAnany, J. Jason
    DOCUMENTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2008, 117 (03) : 197 - 203
  • [6] Towards rapid assessment of retinal function in clinic: comparison of implicit times of photopic flicker electroretinogram responses recorded using a conventional and a portable system in patients with Birdshot chorioretinopathy
    Mahroo, Omar Abdul Rahman
    Hobby, Angharad Elizabeth
    Yonova, Ekaterina Hristova
    Kozareva, Diana
    Hossain, Ibtesham Tausif
    Katta, Mohamed
    Hammond, Christopher J.
    Stanford, Miles R.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2016, 57 (12)