Visual Evoked Potential in Children With Developmental Disorders: Correlation With Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.
10.5535/arm.2018.42.2.305
- Author:
JaYoung KIM
1
;
In Young SUNG
;
Eun Jae KO
;
Minji JUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. iysung56@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Vision disorders;
Developmental disabilities;
Visual evoked potentials
- MeSH:
Child*;
Developmental Disabilities;
Evoked Potentials, Visual*;
Humans;
Infant;
Medical Records;
Rehabilitation;
Retrospective Studies;
Vision Disorders;
Weights and Measures
- From:Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine
2018;42(2):305-312
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with developmental disorder according to visual evoked potential (VEP) results. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed children who visited our Department of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine with a chief complaint of developmental disability from January 2001 to July 2015. Of the 549 medical records reviewed, 322 children younger than 42 months who underwent both Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development second edition (BSID-II) and VEP studies were enrolled. We compared the development of 182 children with normal VEP latency and 140 children with delayed VEP latency results using the BSID-II results. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze the differences between the two groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The delayed VEP latency group showed a significant delay in BSID-II index scores and developmental quotients compared with the normal VEP latency group. In addition, a comparative analysis of developmental quotients of mental and psychomotor domains according to age (younger than 12 months, 12–23 months, and 24–42 months) revealed significantly lower values in children with delayed VEP latency compared to children with normal VEP latency, younger than 12 months and from 12 to 23 months. CONCLUSION: Children with delayed VEP latency showed more developmental delay than children with normal VEP latency. It is suggested that VEP can be easily applied to children with suspected developmental delay when physicians have concerns about visual impairment. Furthermore, it is proposed that VEP results could provide an insight into children's development and serve as early indicators for consultation with an ophthalmologist for the existing problem.
