Comparison of visual evoked potential parameters in acute optic neuritis
More details
Hide details
Oddział Okulistyki Dorosłych, Uniwersyteckie Centrum Kliniczne im. prof. K. Gibińskiego Śląskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Katowicach
Klinika Okulistyki Katedry Okulistyki Wydziału Lekarskiego w Katowicach Śląskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Katowicach
Małgorzata Jurys   

Oddział Okulistyki Dorosłych, Uniwersyteckie Centrum Kliniczne im. prof. K. Gibińskiego Śląskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Katowicach, ul. Ceglana 35, 40-514 Katowice, tel. 506 898 048
Ann. Acad. Med. Siles. 2016;70:206–213
The aim of the work is to compare the visual evoked potentials in patients with acute optic neuritis.

Material and methods:
A retrospective review of 49 patients (53% of women, median age: 32 yrs ± 13) who had history of sudden unilateral visual loss was carried out. The patients were divided into three groups: retrobulbar optic neuritis associated with multiple sclerosis, retrobulbar neuritis without demyelinating disease and optic disc edema. The control group comprised healthy, young adults. Comparison of the P100 wave latencies and amplitudes among affected eyes and the control group, and between the affected and the unaffected eye in every patient was statistically analyzed by the U Mann-Whitney test and the Wilcoxon test. The statistically significant p value < 0.05

64 affected eyes and 34 control eyes were evaluated. The mean P100 latency was the most prolonged in the first group (optic neuritis with confirmed multiple sclerosis). There were no statistically significant differences of amplitudes among the three groups. The P100 values differ significantly (p < 0.01) between the affected eyes and the control eyes. Inter-ocular differences in peak latencies (for both stimulus check size 1° and 15’) were significantly increased in the group with multiple sclerosis (respectively p = 0.005; p = 0.026).

VEPs can be used to demonstrate prolonged P100 latency in patients affected by acute optic neuritis related to demyelination, but VEP only is not sufficient to clearly define the etiology of the optic neuropathy. Prolonged VEP latencies are a more accurate indicator of an inflammatory disorder of the optic nerve than P100 ampli-tudes.

The clinical profile of optic neuritis. Experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Optic Neuritis Study Group. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1991; 109(12): 1673–1678.
Beck R.W., Cleary P.A., Backlund J.C. The course of visual recovery after optic neuritis. Experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Ophthalmology 1994; 101(11): 1771–1778.
Foroozan R., Buono L.M., Savino P.J., Sergott R.C. Acute demyelinating optic neuritis. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2002; 13(6): 375–380.
Toosy A.T., Mason D.F., Miller D.H. Optic neuritis. Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13(1): 83–99.
Osborne B.J., Volpe N.J. Optic neuritis and risk of SM: differential diagnosis and management. Cleve Clin. J. Med. 2009; 76(3): 181–190.
Beck R.W., Trobe J.D., Moke P.S., Gal R.L., Xing D., Bhatti M.T., Brodsky M.C., Buckley E.G., Chrousos G.A., Corbett J., Eggenberger E., Goodwin J.A., Katz B., Kaufman D.I., Keltner J.L., Kupersmith M.J., Miller N.R., Nazarian S., Orengo-Nania S., Savino P.J., Shults W.T., Smith C.H., Wall M. High- and low-risk profiles for the development of multiple sclerosis within 10 years after optic neuritis: experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2003; 121(7): 944–949.
Frohman E.M., Frohman T.C., Zee D.S., McColl R., Galetta S. The neuro-ophthalmology of multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2005; 4(2): 111–121.
Arnold A.C. Evolving management of optic neuritis and multiple sclerosis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2005; 139(6): 1101–1108.
Grover L.K., Hood D.C., Ghadiali Q., Grippo T.M., Wenick A.S., Greenstein V.C., Behrens M.M., Odel J.G. A comparison of multifocal and conventional visual evoked potential techniques in patients with optic neuritis/multiple sclerosis. Doc. Ophthalmol. 2008; 117(2): 121–128.
Holder G.E., Gale R.P., Acheson J.F., Robson A.G. Electrodiagnostic assessment in optic nerve disease. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2009; 22(1): 3–10.
Odom J.V., Bach M., Brigell M., Holder G.E., McCulloch D.L., Tormene A.P. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update). Doc. Ophthalmol. 2010; 120: 111–119.
Halliday A.M., McDonald W.I., Mushin J. Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Br. Med. J. 1973; 4(5893): 661–664.
Balnytė R., Ulozienė I., Rastenytė D., Vaitkus A., Malcienė L., Laučkaitė K. Diagnostic value of conventional visual evoked potentials applied to patients with multiple sclerosis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2011; 47(5): 263–269.
Otruba P. 2. Visual evoked potentials in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015; 126(3): 29–30.
Kolappan M., Henderson A.P., Jenkins T.M., Wheeler-Kingshott C.A., Plant G.T., Thompson A.J., Miller D.H. Assessing structure and function of the afferent visual pathway in multiple sclerosis and associated optic neuritis. J. Neurol. 2009; 256(3): 305–319.
Sobolewski P. Morphology of changes in records of visual evoked potentials in patients with multiple sclerosis. Klin. Oczna. 1992; 94(7–8): 183–185.
Jones S.J. Visual evoked potentials after optic neuritis. Effect of time interval, age and disease dissemination. J. Neurol. 1993; 240(8): 489–494.
Halliday A.M. Visual evoked potentials in demyelinating disease. Adv. Neurol. 1981; 31: 201–215.
Walsh P., Kane N., Butler S. The clinical role of evoked potentials. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 2005; 76 (Suppl. 2): ii16–22.
Trojaborg W., Petersen E. Visual and somatosensory evoked cortical potentials in multiple sclerosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 1979; 42(4): 323–330.
Brusa A., Jones S.J., Plant G.T. Long-term remyelination after optic neuritis: A 2-year visual evoked potential and psychophysical serial study. Brain. 2001; 124(Pt 3): 468–479.
Niklas A., Sebraoui H., Hess E., Wagner A., Then BF. Outcome measures for trials of remyelinating agents in multiple sclerosis: retrospective longitudinal analysis of visual evoked potential latency. Mult. Scler. 2009; 15(1): 68–74.
Klistorner A., Arvind H., Nguyen T., Garrick R., Paine M., Graham S., Yannikas C. Fellow eye changes in optic neuritis correlate with the risk of multiple sclerosis. Mult. Scler. 2009; 15(8): 928–932.
Gronseth G.S., Ashman E.J. Practice parameter: the usefulness of evoked potentials in identifying clinically silent lesions in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review): Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2000; 54(9): 1720–1725.
Coyle P., Arnason B., Hurwitz B., Lublin F. Optimizing Outcomes in Multiple Sclerosis –A Consensus Initiative. Mult Scler. 2009: vol. 15(2) suppl: S5–S35.
Ghezzi A., Martinelli V., Torri V., Zaffaroni M., Rodegher M., Comi G., Zibetti A., Canal N. Long-term follow-up of isolated optic neuritis: the risk of developing multiple sclerosis, its outcome, and the prognostic role of paraclinical tests. J. Neurol. 1999; 246(9): 770–775.
Arpn E.C., Vivero C.D., Garcia T., Quinteiro J.L.R., Gonzalez J.M.P., Bouzas M.L. Prognostic value of visual evoked potentials in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2015: (P5. 205). 84(14) suppl: 5–205.
Palacz O., Lubiński W., Penkala K. Elektrofizjologiczna diagnostyka kliniczna układu wzrokowego. Oftal Warszawa 2003, wyd.1, 161–176.