Flash visual evoked potentials (FVEPs) are often irreproducible during surgery. We assessed the relationship between intraoperative FVEP reproducibility and EEG amplitude. Left then right eyes were stimulated by goggle light emitting diodes, and FVEPs were recorded from Oz–Fz′ (International 10-20 system) in 12 patients. Low cut filters were ≤5 Hz in all patients; two patients also had recordings using 10 and 30 Hz. The reproducibility of FVEP and the amplitude of the concomitant EEG from C4′–Fz were measured. Nine patients had low amplitude EEG (<30 μV); reproducible FVEPs were obtained from all eyes with normal pre-operative vision. The other three patients had high amplitude EEG (>50 μV); FVEPs were absent from three of four eyes with normal pre-operative vision (the other normal eye had a present but irreproducible FVEP). Raising the low cut filter to 10 and 30 Hz (in two patients) progressively reduced EEG and FVEP amplitude, reduced amplifier blocking time and improved FVEP reproducibility. FVEPs were more reproducible in the presence of low amplitude EEG than high amplitude EEG. This is the first report describing the effect of EEG amplitude on FVEP reproducibility during surgery

ABSTRACT:Objective: To determine the relationship between intraoperative flash visual evoked potential (FVEP) monitoring and visual function. Methods: Intraoperative FVEPs were recorded from electrodes placed in the scalp overlying the visual cortex (Oz) after flashing red light stimulation delivered by Cadwell LED stimulating goggles in 89 patients. Restrictive filtering (typically 10–100 Hz), optimal reject window settings, mastoid reference site, total intravenous anesthetic (TIVA), and stable retinal stimulation (ensured by concomitant electroretinogram [ERG] recording) were used to enhance FVEP reproducibility. Results: The relationship between FVEP amplitude change and visual outcome was determined from 179 eyes. One eye had a permanent intraoperative FVEP loss despite stable ERG, and this eye had new, severe postoperative visual dysfunction. Seven eyes had transient significant FVEP change (>50% amplitude decrease that recovered by the end of surgery), but only one of those had a decrease in postoperative visual acuity. FVEP changes in all eight eyes (one permanent FVEP loss plus seven transient FVEP changes) were related to surgical manipulation. In each case the surgeon was promptly informed of the FVEP deterioration and took remedial action. The other eyes did not have FVEP changes, and none of those eyes had new postoperative visual deficits. Conclusions: Our FVEP findings relate to visual outcome with a sensitivity and specificity of 1.0. New methods for rapidly acquiring reproducible FVEP waveforms allowed for timely reporting of significant FVEP change resulting in prompt surgical action. This may have accounted for the low postoperative visual deficit rate (1%) in this series.