Recording of both VEP and multifocal ERG for evaluation of unexplained visual loss : Electrophysiology in unexplained visual loss

• Published in: Documenta ophthalmologica 2005-11, Vol.111 (3), p.149-157
• Main Authors: RENNER, Agnes B, KELLNER, Ulrich, TILLACK, Hilmar, KRAUS, Hannelore, FOERSTER, Michael H
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Blindness - diagnosis; Blindness - physiopathology; Child; Dark Adaptation; Diagnosis, Differential; Diseases of visual field, optic nerve, optic chiasma and optic tracts; Electroretinography - methods; Evoked Potentials, Visual; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Ophthalmology; Retina - physiopathology; Retrospective Studies; Severity of Illness Index; Vision disorders; Visual Acuity
• ISSN: 0012-4486; 1573-2622
• DOI: 10.1007/s10633-005-5362-4

The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the relevance of both visual-evoked potentials (VEP) and multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) to evaluate unexplained visual loss. Seventy-two consecutive patients (1996-2002) with visual disturbances of unknown origin underwent both VEP and mfERG (ISCEV standard). The mean age was 42.4 years (11.8-74.5) and median visual acuity 0.5 (no light perception - 1.0). Symptoms reported included visual acuity loss (n=69), visual field defects (n=11), disturbances of colour vision, light or dark adaptation (n=10). VEP and mfERG were normal in 43% (n=31). Both VEP and mfERG were pathological in 24% (n=17). In a further 18% (n=13) only the mfERG was pathological and in 15% (n=11) only the VEP was pathological. Macular dysfunction as detected with mfERG was present in 73% of 41 patients with at least one pathological test. Neuroimaging (MRI, CCT) and/or neurological examination was performed in 27/72 patients (38%), to account for unexplained visual loss, prior to the electrophysiological tests; these were normal in all patients. Electrophysiological tests revealed disturbances of the post-retinal visual pathway in only 3/27 patients. In 12/27 patients, mfERG revealed a macular disorder; in a further 12/27 patients VEP and mfERG were normal. The combined evaluation of VEP and mfERG is useful both to establish the area of dysfunction and the normality of the visual system. Electrophysiological testing prior to neuroimaging is recommended for patients where clear clinical signs of cerebral disorders are not evident. This reduces the frequency of unnecessary neuroimaging and associated radiation exposure.