This Article  • 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 ISI (19)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Glaucoma  • Alert me on articles by topic

Stuart L. Graham, MBBS, MS, FRANZCO, FRACS; Alexander I. Klistorner, MD, PhD; Ivan Goldberg, MBBS, MS, FRACO, FRACS

Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:729-739.

Objectives  To evaluate the role of objective perimetry using multifocal visual evoked potentials (mVEPs) in glaucoma practice, and to assess its utility in patients with inconclusive standard automated perimetry findings.

Method  A retrospective case series of 436 consecutive subjects referred for glaucoma investigation who underwent testing with the AccuMap V1.3 mVEP system (ObjectiVision Pty, Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) within a defined 12-month period. Sensitivity was determined by comparing this testing with that of standard automated perimetry and that used in a subgroup in whom masked stereoscopic optic disc photographs were used as an alternative reference standard. Overall clinical diagnostic outcomes were assessed.

Results  The mVEP changes were correlated with the stage of disease and Humphrey mean deviation (r = 0.78). The overall sensitivity for detecting glaucoma with established subjective field loss was 97.5% (early glaucoma, 95.0%), whereas 92.2% of low-risk suspects had normal mVEPs. When masked disc assessment alone was used for diagnosis of abnormality, sensitivity of mVEP (80.6%) and Humphrey visual field results (81.9%) were similar, but mVEP specificity was better (89.2% vs 79.5%). The mVEP was particularly useful in assessing excessive subjective field loss (45 eyes) by showing a much closer correlation with the clinical picture.

Conclusions  Multifocal VEP is an effective method for detecting visual field loss in glaucoma. It provides a valuable aid to the clinician in categorizing patients with unreliable, variable, unconfirmed, or excessive subjective field loss.

Author Affiliations: Save Sight Institute, Sydney University, Syndey, New South Wales, Australia.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Electrophysiological Evidence for Heterogeneity of Lesions in Optic Neuritis
Klistorner et al.
IOVS 2007;48:4549-4556.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Dichoptic Stimulation Improves Detection of Glaucoma with Multifocal Visual Evoked Potentials
Arvind et al.
IOVS 2007;48:4590-4596.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparing Multifocal VEP and Standard Automated Perimetry in High-Risk Ocular Hypertension and Early Glaucoma
Fortune et al.
IOVS 2007;48:1173-1180.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Retinotopic Organization of Primary Visual Cortex in Glaucoma: A Method for Comparing Cortical Function with Damage to the Optic Disk
Duncan et al.
IOVS 2007;48:733-744.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The effects of glaucoma on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential.
Graham
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1077-1078.
FULL TEXT  

The effects of glaucoma on the latency of the multifocal visual evoked potential
Rodarte et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1132-1136.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Correlation of the multifocal visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in compressive optic neuropathies.
Danesh-Meyer et al.
IOVS 2006;47:1458-1463.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT