Advertisement

Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Comparison of electroretinographic measurements between tabletop and handheld stimulators in healthy subjects

  • Bum G. Kim
  • In B. Chang
  • Kyeong D. Jeong
  • Jae Y. Park
  • Jae S. Kim
  • Je Hyung HwangEmail author
Original Research Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare full-field electroretinography (ffERG) parameters obtained from handheld and tabletop electroretinography (ERG) devices in normal subjects.

Methods

Twenty volunteers underwent ffERG using a tabletop and handheld stimulator. The responses obtained from the right eyes were compared. The coefficient of variation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were derived to assess inter- and intra-individual reliability.

Results

The b-wave in the rod response, a- and b-waves in the maximal combined response, a-wave in the cone response, and the 30-Hz flicker response showed significantly greater amplitudes when recorded with the tabletop stimulator than with the handheld stimulator. The implicit time of response (ITR) in the 30-Hz flicker response was longer when recorded with the handheld stimulator than when recorded with the tabletop stimulator. With regard to amplitude, the ICC indicated moderate-to-high reliability in the measurement of the b-wave in the rod response, and a- and b-waves in the maximal combined response. With regard to ITR, measurement of the b-wave in the rod response and a-wave in the maximal combined response showed moderate-to-high reliability.

Conclusion

Despite the significantly lower ERG amplitude measurements recorded by the handheld stimulator, there were no significant differences in variability between the two stimulators.

Keywords

Full-field electroretinography Handheld stimulator Normal subjects Tabletop stimulator 

Notes

Acknowledgements

B G Kim, I B Chang contributed equally to this work and both should be considered as first authors. Each of the authors, B G Kim, I B Chang, K D Jeong, J Y Park, J S Kim, and J H Hwang has contributed to the development of the study design, data collection and analysis, and writing of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

Statement of human rights

The present study was a cross-over comparative study, which was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was conducted after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital (IRB approval number: 2017-07-023) and after receiving voluntary consent from all participants.

Statement on the welfare of animals

This study does not include animal study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    McCulloch DL, Marmor MF, Brigell MG et al (2015) ISCEV standard for full-field clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Doc Ophthalmol 130:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sachidanandam R, Khetan V, Sen P (2015) Comparison between fullfield electroretinography obtained from handheld and tabletop devices in normal subjects. Can J Ophthalmol 50:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Han JW, Kong YJ, Park TK et al (2015) Clinical usefulness of Fresnel Ganzfeld stimulator. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 56:1874–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    May CA, Narfström K (2012) Retinal capillary morphology in the Abyssinian cat with hereditary retinal degeneration. Exp Eye Res 99:45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekesten B, Komaromy AM, Ofri R et al (2013) Guidelines for clinical electroretinography in the dog: 2012 update. Doc Ophthalmol 127:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Messias A, Gekeler F, Wegener A et al (2008) Retinal safety of a new fluoroquinolone, pradofloxacin, in cats: assessment with electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol 116:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaegan Narfstrom K (2008) Amax to scotopic Imax diagnoses feline hereditary rod cone degeneration more efficiently than any other combination of long protocol electroretinogram parameters. Doc Ophthalmol 117:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Quill KR, Dioguardi PK, Tong CT et al (2005) Subconjunctival carboplatin in fibrin sealant in the treatment of transgenic murine retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology 112:1151–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Church ML, Norman JC (2012) Electroretinogram responses of the normal thoroughbred horse sedated with detomidine hydrochloride. Vet Ophthalmol 15(Suppl 2):77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sachidanandam R, Krishnakumar S, Gopal L et al (2013) Full-field electroretinography under general anesthesia in retinoblastoma. Doc Ophthalmol 126:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brodie SE, Pierre Gobin Y, Dunkel IJ et al (2009) Persistence of retinal function after selective ophthalmic artery chemotherapy infusion for retinoblastoma. Doc Ophthalmol 119:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brodie SE, Paulus YM, Patel M et al (2012) ERG monitoring of retinal function during systemic chemotherapy for retinoblastoma. Br J Ophthalmol 96:877–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brigell M, Bach M, Barber C et al (2003) Guidelines for calibration of stimulus and recording parameters used in clinical electrophysiology of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 107:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park J, Lee H, Park SJ et al (2010) Comparison of electroretinogram waveforms acquired using monopolar ERG-jet electrode and bipolar Burian-Allen electrode. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 51:1217–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lapkovska A, Palmowski-Wolfe AM, Todorova MG (2016) Comparing DTL microfiber and Neuroline skin electrode in the Mini Ganzfeld ERG. BMC Ophthalmol 16:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asi H, Perlman I (1992) Relationships between the electroretinogram a-wave, b-wave and oscillatory potentials and their application to clinical-diagnosis. Doc Ophthalmol 79:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sabates R, Hirose T, McMeel JW (1983) Electroretinography in the prognosis and classification of central retinal vein occlusion. Arch Ophthalmol 101:232–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oh JW, Yun IH (2003) The usefulness of standard electroretinogram in classification of central retinal vein occlusion. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 44:1789–1796Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Sanggye Paik HospitalInje University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, Busan Paik HospitalInje University College of MedicineBusanKorea
  3. 3.Asan-si Healthcare CenterAsan-siKorea

Personalised recommendations