You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 106 No. 3, March 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  CLINICAL SCIENCES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (41)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Early Electroretinography in Unilateral Central Retinal Vein Occlusion as a Predictor of Rubeosis Iridis

Stephen B. Kaye, FRCS; Simon P. Harding, FRCS

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(3):353-356.


Abstract

• Twenty-six patients with clinically nonischemic unilateral central retinal vein occlusion and four in whom clinical categorization was unclear were recruited. The scotopic electroretinogram (ERG) was recorded at presentation to a range of six different luminances. Patients were followed up for six months to assess the correlation between initial ERG response and subsequent outcome. Seven patients developed rubeosis iridis. The b-wave implicit time was the parameter most significantly associated with subsequent rubeosis, followed by b-wave/a-wave amplitude ratio and then b-wave amplitude. Neither a-wave amplitude nor implicit time was a valuable predictor. The b-wave implicit times were equally predictive of rubeosis at each of the luminances used. In individually affected eyes, a b-wave implicit time at presentation, averaged across the range of luminances used, of greater than 47.17 ms was strongly associated with later rubeosis, as was an intereye difference of greater than 7.39 ms.



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, St Pauls Eye Hospital, Liverpool, (Drs Kaye and Harding), and University of Liverpool (Dr Harding), England.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication Sept 19, 1987.

Reprint requests to Registrar in Ophthalmology, St Pauls Eye Hospital, Old Hall Street, Liverpool, England L39BP (Dr Kaye).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Multifocal Electroretinographic Features of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion
Dolan et al.
IOVS 2003;44:4954-4959.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Central retinal vein occlusion: what's the story?
WILLIAMSON
Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:698-704.
FULL TEXT  

Predicting Outcome in Central Retinal Vein Occlusion Using the Flicker Electroretinogram
Severns and Johnson
Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:1123-1130.
ABSTRACT  

Electroretinographic Findings in Iris Neovascularization due to Acute Central Retinal Vein Occlusion
Johnson and McPhee
Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:806-814.
ABSTRACT  

Correlation of Electroretinographic Findings and Peripheral Retinal Nonperfusion in Patients With Sickle Cell Retinopathy
Peachey et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:1106-1109.
ABSTRACT  

Electroretinographic Findings in Fellow Eyes of Patients With Central Retinal Vein Occlusion
Sakaue et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:1459-1462.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1988 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.