SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi / 2020 / Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 2

Comparing Colored and White-Black Visual Evoked Potentials in Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Multipl Skleroz Hastalarında Siyah-Beyaz ve Renkli Görsel Uyandırılmış Potansiyeller (GUP) Kıyaslaması

Erkan ACAR
Aysun SOSYAL
Mesude TÜTÜNCÜ
Zeynep ÖZDEMİR
Selin KAYA
Nilüfer KALE
Pages
93–97
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There was no significantpathological difference between the eyes with an ON history in MS andeyes without an ON history in MS and control subjects after WB, WR,and BR stimulation (p=).Conclusions: The WB checkerboard stimulated VEP is an ample testfor routine use; further studies are necessary regarding the utility of rbstimulated VEP in detecting subclinical ON.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: We compared white-black (WB), white-red (WR), andblack-red (BR) checkerboard stimulated visual evoked potentials (VEPs)in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and aimed to evaluate if redcoloredVEP is more sensitive than WB VEP for the diagnosis of optic neuritis(ON).Methods: Twenty-nine MS patients (21 females [72.4%]) and 35 healthycontrol subjects (24 females [68.6%]) were included in the study.Neurological and ophthalmological examinations were conductedfor all subjects and VEP and optical coherence tomography (OCT)investigations were performed.Results: A significant difference was found between MS patients andthe control group for WB, WR, BR stimulated VEP P100 latencies andretinal nerve fiber length (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC)thicknesses, but there was no difference for WB, WR, and rb stimulatedVEP amplitude values between the groups.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Introduction: We compared white-black (WB), white-red (WR), andblack-red (BR) checkerboard stimulated visual evoked potentials (VEPs)in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and aimed to evaluate if redcoloredVEP is more sensitive than WB VEP for the diagnosis of optic neuritis(ON).Methods: Twenty-nine MS patients (21 females [72.4%]) and 35 healthycontrol subjects (24 females [68.6%]) were included in the study.Neurological and ophthalmological examinations were conductedfor all subjects and VEP and optical coherence tomography (OCT)investigations were performed.Results: A significant difference was found between MS patients andthe control group for WB, WR, BR stimulated VEP P100 latencies andretinal nerve fiber length (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC)thicknesses, but there was no difference for WB, WR, and rb stimulatedVEP amplitude values between the groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There was no significantpathological difference between the eyes with an ON history in MS andeyes without an ON history in MS and control subjects after WB, WR,and BR stimulation (p=).Conclusions: The WB checkerboard stimulated VEP is an ample testfor routine use; further studies are necessary regarding the utility of rbstimulated VEP in detecting subclinical ON.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: We compared white-black (WB), white-red (WR), andblack-red (BR) checkerboard stimulated visual evoked potentials (VEPs)in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and aimed to evaluate if redcoloredVEP is more sensitive than WB VEP for the diagnosis of optic neuritis(ON).Methods: Twenty-nine MS patients (21 females [72.4%]) and 35 healthycontrol subjects (24 females [68.6%]) were included in the study.Neurological and ophthalmological examinations were conductedfor all subjects and VEP and optical coherence tomography (OCT)investigations were performed.Results: A significant difference was found between MS patients andthe control group for WB, WR, BR stimulated VEP P100 latencies andretinal nerve fiber length (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC)thicknesses, but there was no difference for WB, WR, and rb stimulatedVEP amplitude values between the groups. There was no significantpathological difference between the eyes with an ON history in MS andeyes without an ON history in MS and control subjects after WB, WR,and BR stimulation (p=).Conclusions: The WB checkerboard stimulated VEP is an ample testfor routine use; further studies are necessary regarding the utility of rbstimulated VEP in detecting subclinical ON.

Özet

Amaç: Multipl Skleroz (MS) hastalarında siyah-beyaz (sb), kırmızı-beyaz (kb) ve kırmızı-siyah (ks) uyarımlı Görsel Uyandırılmış Potansiyelleri (GUP) kıyasladık ve optik nörit tanısında renkli GUP’un sb GUP’tan daha hassas olup olmadığını tespit etmeyi amaçladık. Yöntem: 29 MS hastası (21 kadın (%72,4)) ve 35 sağlıklı gönüllü (24 kadın %68,6) çalışmaya dahil edildi. Tüm katılımcılara nörolojik ve oftalmolojik muayeneler, GUP ve Optik Koherans Tomografi (OKT) yapıldı. Bulgular: MS hastaları ve kontrol grubu arasında sb, kb, ks uyarımlı VEP P100 latansları, Retinal sinir lifi kalınlıkları (RSLK) ve Ganglion hücre kompleksi (GHK) kalınlıkları açısından anlamlı farklılık saptandı, ancak sb, kb ve ks uyarımlı GUP amplitüd değerlerinde farklılık saptanmadı. Sb, kb ve ks uyarım ile ON öyküsü olan gözlerde, MS tanılı ancak ON öyküsü olmayan gözlerde ve sağlıklı gönüllülerde anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı. Sonuç: Sb uyarımlı GUP rutinde kullanılan önemli bir testtir ve subklinik ON tanısını koymada kb uyarımlı GUP’un yararlılığı için daha ileri çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ACAR, E., SOSYAL, A., TÜTÜNCÜ, M., ÖZDEMİR, Z., KAYA, S., KALE, N. (2022). Comparing Colored and White-Black Visual Evoked Potentials in Multiple Sclerosis Patients. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi, Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 2, 93–97. https://ajindex.com/articles/584616

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Roodhooft JM. Ocular problems in early stages of multiple sclerosis. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 2009; 313:65-68
  2. Sorensen TL, Frederiksen JL, Bronnum-Hansen H, Petersen HC. Optic neuritis as onset manifestation of multiple sclerosis: a nationwide, long-term survey. Neurology 1999; 53:473. [CrossRef] 3. Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Moreau T, Adeleine P. Relapses and progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:1430-1438. [CrossRef] 4. Brodsky M, Nazarian S, Orengo-Nania S, Hutton GJ, Buckley EG, Massey EW, Bhatti MT, Greer M, Goodwin J, Wall M, Savino PJ, Leist T, Miller NR, Irani D, Trobe JD, Cornblath W, Kaufman DI, Eggenberger E, Kupersmith MJ, Shults WT, McAllister L, Hamilton S, Beck RW, Dontchev M, Gal RL, Kollman C, Keltner JL, Smith CH., Multiple sclerosis risk after optic neuritis: final optic neuritis treatment trial follow-up. Arch Neurol 2008; 65:727-732
  3. Travis D, Thompson P. Spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity and color vision in multipl sclerosis. Brain 1989; 112:283-303. [CrossRef] 6. Hoorbakht H, Bagherkashi F. Optic Neuritis, its Differential Diagnosis and Management. Open Ophthalmol J 2012; 6:65-72. [CrossRef] 7. Voss E, Raab P, Trebst C, Stangel M. Clinical approach to optic neuritis: pitfalls, red flags and differential diagnosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2011; 4:123-134. [CrossRef] 8. Chris H Polman, Stephen C Reingold, Banwell B, Clanet M, Jeffrey A Cohen, Filippi M, Fujihara K, Havrdova E, Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Fred D Lublin, Montalban X, O’Connor P, Sandberg-Wollheim M, Alan J Thompson, Waubant E, Weinshenker B, Jerry S Wolinsky. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 Revisions to the McDonald criteria; Ann Neurol 2011; 69:292- 302
  4. You Y, Klistorner A, Thie J, Graham SL. Latency delay of visual evoked potential is a real measurement of demyelination in a rat model of optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:6911-6918. [CrossRef] 10. Accornero N, Gregori B, Galie E, De Feo A, Agnesi R. A new color vep procedure discloses asymptomatic visual impairments in optic neuritis and glaucoma suspects. Acta Neurol Scand 2000; 102:258-263. [CrossRef] 11. Chirapapaisan N, Laotaweerungsawat S, Chuenkongkaew W, Samsen P, Ruangvaravate N, Thuangtong A, Chanvarapha N. Diagnostic value of visual evoked potentials for clinical diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Documenta Ophthalmologica 2015; 130:25-30. [CrossRef] 12. Keith H. Chiappa. Pattern-shift visual evoked potentials. Evoked potentials in cli