Preoperative visual evoked potential in the prediction of visual outcome after pituitary macroadenomas surgery
- 37 Downloads
The purpose of the present study is to investigate longitudinal changes in Visual evoked potential (VEP) parameters as an objective test after transsphenoidal surgery, its correlation with subjective tests and clinical value of VEP in the prediction of visual outcome.
Fifty patients with pituitary macroadenoma who underwent surgical removal of the tumor recruited in this study. All the patients underwent ophthalmic examination, static automated perimetry (SAP), VEP and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.
Fifty patients with pituitary macroadenoma (size: 25.1 ± 9.9 mm) were recruited in the study. Before surgery, the pattern of VEP showed a prolonged latency with reduced amplitude in eyes with abnormal visual acuity or abnormal visual field. The P100 wave latencies and amplitudes showed significant correlation with visual acuity and SAP scores. After surgery, visual acuity and visual field improvements were seen in 51% and 65.6% of eyes, respectively. Mean SAP and visual acuity scores increased significantly (p < 0.01), P100 wave latency declined and amplitude improved after surgery but not significantly. The mean age of patients, size of tumors and preoperative P100 wave latency were significantly lower in eyes with visual field and acuity improvement.
VEP is a helpful quantitative and objective complementary test to visual acuity and SAP exams for assessing pre-operative visual abnormalities and post-operative visual outcome in patients with pituitary macroadenoma.
KeywordsPituitary adenoma Standard automated perimetry Transsphenoidal surgery Visual acuity Visual evoked potential Visual field
- 7.Petersen J (1984) Objective determination of visual acuity by visual evoked potentials. Spec Tests Vis Funct 9:108–114Google Scholar
- 9.Wilson W, Kirsch W, Neville H, Stears J, Feinsod M, Lehman R (1976) Monitoring of visual function during parasellar surgery. Surg Neurol 5(6):323–329Google Scholar
- 10.Semela L, Hedges TR, Vuong L (2007) Serial multifocal visual evoked potential recordings in compressive optic neuropathy. Ophthalmic Sur Lasers Imaging Retina 38(3):250–253Google Scholar
- 14.Sriram P, Wang C, Yiannikas C, Garrick R, Barnett M, Parratt J, Graham SL, Arvind H, Klistorner A (2014) Relationship between optical coherence tomography and electrophysiology of the visual pathway in non-optic neuritis eyes of multiple sclerosis patients. PLoS ONE 9(8):e102546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Hood DC, Odel JG, Zhang X (2000) Tracking the recovery of local optic nerve function after optic neuritis: a multifocal VEP study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(12):4032–4038Google Scholar
- 17.Qiao N, Zhang Y, Ye Z, Shen M, Shou X, Wang Y, Li S, Wang M, Zhao Y (2015) Comparison of multifocal visual evoked potential, static automated perimetry, and optical coherence tomography findings for assessing visual pathways in patients with pituitary adenomas. Pituitary 18(5):598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Anik I, Anik Y, Koc K, Ceylan S, Genc H, Altintas O, Ozdamar D, Ceylan DB (2011) Evaluation of early visual recovery in pituitary macroadenomas after endoscopic endonasal transphenoidal surgery: quantitative assessment with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Acta Neurochir 153(4):831–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Yu F-F, Chen L-L, Su Y-H, Huo L-H, Lin X-X, Liao R-D (2015) Factors influencing improvement of visual field after trans-sphenoidal resection of pituitary macroadenomas: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Ophthalmol 8(6):1224Google Scholar