10-Hz flash visual evoked potentials predict post-cataract extraction visual acuity

Odom, J. Vernon; Hobson, Robert R.; Coldren, Jeffrey T.; Chao, Gung-mei; Weinstein, George W.

doi:10.1007/bf00213657

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the VEP is abnormal one can be relatively certain that the patient will not have postoperative visual acuity of 6/15 (20/50) or better. This is true irrespective of the initial visual acuity [13]. With the other techniques accuracy declines rapidly as preoperative visual acuity is impaired [14,15,16,17,18,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Preoperative prediction of postoperative visual acuity in patients with cataracts: A quantitative review

1988

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many tests of visual function have been proposed as means of preoperatively evaluating cataract patients' surgical outcomes. It is impractical to compare all of these tests simultaneously on the same group of patients. Quantitative reviews apply quantitative methods to comparisons across studies. We compared the results of 52 reports in which cataract patients' postoperative acuity was predicted by means of visually evoked potential, laser interferometry, or projection tests (potential acuity meters-pinhole). The results of each study were summarized in a 2 x 2 contingency table. Summary statistics were compared by means of analysis of variance and post hoc tests. Despite difficulties in metaanalysis, we found the visually evoked potential a better predictor with dense opacities. We recommend standardization in a quest for more precise predictions of postoperative visual acuity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Preoperative prediction of postoperative visual acuity in patients with cataracts: A quantitative review

1988

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We confirm the described trends of a high positive predictive value and sensitivity and a lower negative predictive value and specificity. Because Vryghem et al did not specify their definition of sensitivity and specificity, and because these terms have been used in different ways by different studies (Bernth-Petersen & Naeser 1982;Odom et al 1987;Reid et al 2005), we are not sure that these results are comparable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…It should have good accuracy and also a high predictive value (Odom et al 1987). A number of methods using different examination equipment have been described: electroretinography (Bertrand et al 1984;Sherman et al 1988;Wu et al 1991), visual evoked potentials (Bertrand et al 1984;Odom et al 1987;Sherman et al 1988;Mori et al 2001), colour saturation discrimination (Kogure et al 1999), blue-field entoptic tests (Sinclair et al 1979;Miris & Missotten 1982;Grignolo et al 1988), B-scan ultrasonography (Sherman et al 1988), critical flicker frequency (del Romo et al 2005), laser or whitelight interferometry (Lotmar 1980;Spurny et al 1986;Lasa et al 1995;Le Sage et al 2002;Reid et al 2005) and potential acuity meter (PAM) (Spurny et al 1986;Lasa et al 1995;Devereux et al 2000;Gus et al 2000;Le Sage et al 2002;Reid et al 2005;Uy & Munoz 2005). Other tests using routine eye examination equipment have also been proposed: potential acuity pinhole test (Melki et al 1999;Uy & Munoz 2005), illuminated near card assessment (Hofeldt & Weiss 1998) and reading speed test (Pesudovs et al 2002;Stifter et al 2005); these have been compared to the more sophisticated methods (Uy & Munoz 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of adapted Vryghem macular function test and Lotmar-light interferometer in predicting visual acuity after cataract surgery

Bertschinger¹,

Janin²,

Dosso³

2008

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To assess the accuracy of a newly described macular function test (Vryghem macular function test) adapted to our examination equipment and to compare it to the Lotmar-light interferometer for the preoperative evaluation of cataract patients at the University Eye Clinic, Geneva, Switzerland. Methods: This prospective study included 71 consecutive patients (72 eyes) who were undergoing uneventful cataract surgery. Testing with the Lotmarlight interferometer and an adapted form of Vryghem macular function test (AVMFT) using a Birkhauser reading chart, a hyperaddition of +8 D and halogen illumination were performed to assess macular function and to predict postoperative visual acuity (VA). The duration of each test and the density and location of lens opacities were also noted. Best-corrected postoperative VA was compared to the predicted values of each test. Results: The positive predictive value was 94.2% for AVMFT compared to 92.2% for the Lotmar-light interferometer. The negative predictive value was 50% for AVMFT compared to 42.9% for the Lotmar-light interferometer. The sensitivity was 83.1% for AVMFT and 79.7% for the Lotmar-light interferometer. The specificity was 76.9% for AVMFT and 69.2% for the Lotmarlight interferometer. The correlation coefficient for AVMFT and preoperative Lotmar results (both in LogMAR) with postoperative best-corrected VA (poBCVA; LogMAR) were similar (0.74 and 0.77 respectively). Conclusion:The results of this study suggest that AVMFT is as reliable as the Lotmar-light interferometer in predicting postoperative VA after uneventful cataract surgery. The correlation coefficients with postoperative VA were 0.74 and 0.77, respectively. Both tests showed a high positive (94.2% and 92.2%, respectively) but a low negative (50.0% and 42.9%, respectively) predictive value.

show abstract

“…In our laboratory, the prediction accuracy has ranged from 70% to 80% [4][5][6][7][8][9]. In the present study we sought to answer two questions: If VEPs predict postoperative visual acuity accurately, can they also predict contrast sensitivity?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of preoperative 10-Hz visual evoked potentials to contrast sensitivity and visual acuity after cataract extraction

et al. 1992

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cataract patients whose surgical outcomes were in question were referred for testing by visual evoked potentials, elicited through closed eyelids by a luminance stimulus (flash) that appeared 10 times per second. Visual evoked potentials were rated as normal (predicted acuity of 20/50 or better) or abnormal (predicted acuity of 20/60 or worse). Postoperative Arden and Optronix contrast sensitivities and visual acuities were determined in 37 patients who had no intraoperative or early postoperative complications. Arden grating scores of less than 100 were rated as normal. The optimal and cutoff spatial frequency values were determined for the Optronix scores. Optimal and cutoff values of greater or equal to 1 c/deg and 12 c/deg, respectively, were rated as normal. Visual acuities were considered normal at 20/50 or better. Preoperative visual evoked potentials were quantitatively compared to the postoperative contrast sensitivities and visual acuities by 2 x 2 contingency tables. The accuracy of prediction was 79% for the visual acuities, 62% for the Optronix optimal values, 70% for the Optronix cutoff values and 62% for the Arden gratings.

show abstract

10-Hz flash visual evoked potentials predict post-cataract extraction visual acuity

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

Preoperative prediction of postoperative visual acuity in patients with cataracts: A quantitative review

Preoperative prediction of postoperative visual acuity in patients with cataracts: A quantitative review

Comparison of adapted Vryghem macular function test and Lotmar-light interferometer in predicting visual acuity after cataract surgery

Comparison of preoperative 10-Hz visual evoked potentials to contrast sensitivity and visual acuity after cataract extraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About