Publications (2)5.6 Total impact
-
Article: Changes in first- and second-order multifocal electroretinography in idiopathic macular hole and their correlations with macular hole diameter and visual acuity.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the first- and second-order multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) responses in patients with idiopathic macular hole, and their correlations with macular hole diameter measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual acuity. Twenty-four eyes of 24 patients with idiopathic macular hole underwent mfERG and OCT examinations. The response amplitudes and implicit times of the first- and second-order mfERG were analyzed and compared with 20 age-similar normal control subjects. Correlation analyses between visual acuity, apical and basal diameters of the macular hole, and the first- and second-order mfERG amplitudes and implicit times were performed. The first-order mfERG N1 and P1 amplitudes in the central two concentric rings were reduced in macular hole eyes compared with controls (p < 0.006). For the second-order mfERG, only the N1 mfERG amplitude was significantly reduced at ring 6 in macular hole eyes compared with controls (p = 0.030). Correlation analysis showed that apical diameter of macular hole was significantly correlated with the first-order N1 amplitude of rings 2 to 5 (p < 0.024), the first-order P1 amplitude of rings 2 to 6 (p < 0.05), as well as the second-order P1 mfERG amplitudes of rings 3 to 6 and N1 amplitudes of rings 3 to 5 (p < 0.05). LogMAR visual acuity showed significant correlation with apical diameter of the macular hole (p = 0.002), and also with the first-order P1 amplitude of ring 2 (p = 0.024). In eyes with idiopathic macular hole, reductions in first-order mfERG responses are limited to the central macula, while the second-order mfERG response abnormalities involved more of the peripheral macular region. OCT measurement of apical and not the basal diameter of macular hole correlated with the severity of retinal dysfunction assessed by both mfERG and visual acuity.Albrecht von Graæes Archiv für Ophthalmologie 09/2009; 248(4):477-84. · 2.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Anterior chamber angle measurement with anterior segment optical coherence tomography: a comparison between slit lamp OCT and Visante OCT.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare anterior chamber angle measurements obtained from two anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) instruments and to evaluate their agreements and interobserver reproducibility. Forty-nine eyes from 49 healthy normal subjects were studied. The anterior chamber angle was imaged with the Visante anterior segment OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and the slit lamp OCT (SLOCT, Heidelberg Engineering, GmbH, Dossenheim, Germany) on one randomly selected eye in each subject and measured by two independent observers. The angle-opening distance (AOD 500), the trabecular-iris angle (TIA 500), and the trabecular-iris space area (TISA 500) at the nasal and temporal angles were measured. The agreements between SLOCT and Visante OCT measurements and the interobserver reproducibility were evaluated. The mean nasal/temporal anterior chamber angles measured by Visante OCT and SLOCT were 527 +/- 249/572 +/- 275 microm (AOD), 0.180 +/- 0.091/0.193 +/- 0.102 mm(2) (TISA), and 38.1 +/- 12.3/39.6 +/- 13.2 degrees (TIA); and 534 +/- 234/628 +/- 254 microm (AOD), 0.191 +/- 0.089/0.217 +/- 0.093 mm(2)(TISA), and 37.8 +/- 10.1/40.6 +/- 10.7 degrees (TIA), respectively. No significant difference was found between Visante OCT and SLOCT measurements except the temporal TISA (P = 0.034). The interobserver coefficient of variation ranged between 4.4% and 7.8% for Visante OCT and 4.9% and 7.0% for SLOCT. The spans of 95% limits of agreement of the nasal/temporal angle measurements between Visante OCT and SLOCT were 437/531 mm(2), 0.174/0.186 mm(2), and 25.3/28.0 degrees for AOD, TISA, and TIA, respectively. Although Visante OCT and SLOCT demonstrate high interobserver reproducibility for anterior chamber angle measurements, their agreement was poor.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 05/2008; 49(8):3469-74. · 3.43 Impact Factor
