Prediction of multifocal visual evoked potential for postoperative visual recovery in cataract patients
10.3969/j.issn.1672-5123.2009.06.002
- VernacularTitle:多焦视皮质诱发电位检查对白内障患者术后视力的预测
- Author:
Cai-Yun, YOU
;
Ping, LIU
;
Wei-Qi, GAO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
multifocal visual evoked potential;
cataract;
best corrected visual acuityDOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-5123.2009.06.002
- From:
International Eye Science
2009;9(6):1016-1019
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
AIM: To determine multifocal visual evoked potential (mVEP) in the prediction of postoperative visual acuity in cataract. METHODS: We examined 30 normal eyes as control and 60 eyes of 52 cataract patients, senile cataract in 27 cases 30 eyes, cataract with glaucoma in 25 cases 30 eyes by mVEP examination. All patients underwent phacoemulsifi-cation (Phaco) and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. After surgery,best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was examined at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months respectively.RESULTS: The mean amplitude and latency in mVEP responses between normal control group were 183±11nV, 95±8ms, and in senile cataract group were 177±10nV, 96± 8ms respectively, there were no significant difference between two groups (P>0.05). The mean amplitude and latency of cataract with glaucoma 138±7nV, 99±6ms were significantly different comparing to both control and senile cataract group (P<0.05). After surgery, the am-plitude and latency were 276±11nV and 93±8ms respec-tively, which did not change significantly comparing to the normal eyes (P<0.05), their visual function got no obvious damage and visual recovery were better (BCVA≥0.8). While those with central amplitude 221±6nV and latency 105±7ms that were significantly deviated from control group (P<0.05), and their visual function were seriously damaged and visual recovery were much poorer (BCVA<0.3).CONCLUSION: mVEP waveform might enable us to evaluate objective visual function detection before cataract surgery. A subject with visual function damage, their mVEP responses to stimulation were severely changed when it compared to controls.
