Changes in the s-Wave of Multifocal Electroretinograms in Eyes with Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma

Abstract

The characteristics of the s-wave in glaucomatous eyes were the same as those in the control eyes, but the amplitude of the s-waves in POAG eyes was significantly lower than that in the control eyes. This suggests that ganglion cells may be involved in the development of the s-wave. When comparing the s-wave with static perimetry, more local responses of the s-wave and more local retinal sensitivity in the static perimetry will be appropriate.

The Clinical Applications of Multifocal Electroretinography: A Systematic Review

“…261 Studies by Murai et al and Kobayashi et al showed that the s-wave amplitudes were significantly smaller in glaucoma patients compared with control. 137,206 Analysis also demonstrated significant correlation between the s-wave mfERG amplitude and visual field sensitivity. 206 However, the analysis was only done by hemifield and it was unclear whether good correlations exist between the s-wave parameters and visual field sensitivity for specific retinal locations.…”

“…Studies have also evaluated a similar wavelet on the descending limb of the firstorder P1 mfERG response called s-wave which was suggested to be useful in the assessment of glaucoma. 137,206 The s-wave can be enhanced using a low-frequency mfERG stimulus and the response is thought to arise from the retinal ganglion cells as it is significantly higher in amplitude at locations closer to the optic nerve and is absent in patients with optic neuritis. 261 Studies by Murai et al and Kobayashi et al showed that the s-wave amplitudes were significantly smaller in glaucoma patients compared with control.…”

Relationship Between the s-wave Amplitude of the Multifocal Electroretinogram and the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Glaucomatous Eyes

“…In our previous study, the s-wave was most pronounced at a stimulus frequency under 9.4 Hz. [1][2][3] However, because the s-wave was much more contaminated with noise when it was recorded at a frequency lower than 9.4 Hz, we used 9.4 Hz in the present study. The mfERG recording time was increased from 2 min to 4 min, resulting in a twofold increase in the number of summations.…”

“…2,3,6,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] One study reported that the amplitudes of the N1, P1, and N2 of the first-order kernel of the mfERG were smaller and the implicit times were longer in glaucomatous eyes than in normal eyes, but that none of these parameters showed any correlation with the MD as measured by perimetry. 25 On the other hand, another study showed that the MD measurement by perimetry correlated with the amplitude of the P1 and N2 of the first-order kernel responses.…”

“…[1][2][3] In brief, a visual evoked response imaging system (VERIS; Mayo, Nagoya, Japan) was used to record the mfERG. Before the recording, topical 0.5% tropicamide and 0.5% phenylephrine hydrochloride (Mydrin-P; Santen Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan) were used to dilate the test eyes.…”