2001
DOI: 10.1023/a:1017507220510
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Abstract: To evaluate the visual function of 15 eyes suffering from macular hole the multifocal ERG was used pre and postoperatively. In all the cases a successful vitrectomy has been done with macular hole closure in all the eyes. The Multifocal ERG shows an improvement of retinal response density in regions 1 and 2, even in the 2 eyes with unchanged visual acuity postoperatively. Although a relationship exist between the postoperative retinal response density and the visual acuity, the retinal response density varies … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies in the use of mfERG in assessing macular hole have found that the first-order mfERG response amplitudes were reduced in the areas corresponding to the macular hole and the mfERG abnormalities were mostly localized to the central macula [10][11][12]. Consistent with previous studies, our results demonstrated that the firstorder mfERG N1 and P1 amplitudes were limited to the central two rings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Previous studies in the use of mfERG in assessing macular hole have found that the first-order mfERG response amplitudes were reduced in the areas corresponding to the macular hole and the mfERG abnormalities were mostly localized to the central macula [10][11][12]. Consistent with previous studies, our results demonstrated that the firstorder mfERG N1 and P1 amplitudes were limited to the central two rings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…On the other hand, mfERG can provide objective functional assessment of eyes with macular hole and it can demonstrate the extent of macular dysfunction topographically with reduced response amplitudes at the central macula [7]. Several studies have demonstrated that reductions in first-order mfERG response amplitudes are mostly localized to the central macula [8][9][10]. However, previous mfERG studies that evaluated patients with macular hole mainly focused on the assessment of the first-order mfERG responses, and the second-order mfERG responses have not been assessed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although both BCVA and mfERG responses improved incrementally after surgery [ Figure 4 ], they were not found to be statistically correlated at each evaluation time point of our short-term observation [ Figure 5 ] as well as in previous longer term studies concerning conventional surgical technique (just ILM peeling but without inverting) in treatment of MHs. [ 21 22 23 ] The lack of correlation between BCVA and mfERG responses suggested that these two functional evaluation modalities could not adequately represent, but might be supplemental to, each other in the clinical setting of MHs, and might be explained by the following differences between them: BCVA is a subjective measurement and only measure the function of the fixation point under optimal condition, while mfERG is an objective measurement and provides a topographic electrophysiological mapping of the central retina. Further studies combining BCVA, OCT, mfERG, and subjective functional mapping of the central retina, such as microperimetry, might provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the patients with MHs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous authors have reported varied results about the role of mfERG in macular hole. A positive correlation was seen between the postoperative visual acuity and mfERG amplitudes, however, the amplitudes tended to vary greatly even in patients with the same level of acuity (Si et al, 1999;Moschos et al, 2001). Conversely, improvement in ERG amplitudes were noted even with unchanged visual acuities after macular hole closure (Si et al, 1999).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%