Advertisement

Documenta Ophthalmologica

, Volume 132, Issue 1, pp 39–45 | Cite as

The effects of fundus photography on the multifocal electroretinogram

  • Sandip Suresh
  • Brian J. Tienor
  • Scott D. Smith
  • Michael S. Lee
Original Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the effect of flash fundus photography (FFP) on the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG).

Methods

Ten subjects underwent mfERG testing on three separate dates. Subjects received either mfERG without FFP, mfERG at 5 and 15 min after FFP, or mfERG at 30 and 45 min after FFP on each date. The FFP groups received 10 fundus photographs followed by mfERG testing, first of the right eye then of the left eye 10 min later. Data were averaged and analyzed in six concentric rings at each time point. Average amplitude and implicit times of the N1, P1, and N2 peaks for each concentric ring at each time point after FFP were compared to baseline.

Results

Flash fundus photography did not lead to a significant change of amplitude or implicit times of N1, P1, or N2 at 5 min after light exposure.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that it is acceptable to perform mfERG testing without delay after performance of FFP.

Keywords

Multifocal electroretinogram mfERG Fundus photography Electroretinography 

Notes

Funding

Supported in part by an Unrestricted Grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY and Minnesota Lions Club (MSL, LKM).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

References

  1. 1.
    Sutter EE (1991) The fast m-transform A fast computation of cross-correlations with binary m-sequences. SIAM J Comput 20:686–694. doi: 10.1137/0220043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sutter EE, Tran D (1992) The field topography of ERG components in Man-I. The photopic luminance response. Vis Res 32:433–446. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90235-B CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hood DC (2000) Assessing retinal function with the multifocal technique. Prog Retin Eye Res 19:607–646. doi: 10.1016/S1350-9462(00)00013-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hood DC, Odel JG, Chen CS, Winn BJ (2003) The multifocal electroretinogram. J Neuroophthalmol 23:225–235. doi: 10.1097/00041327-200309000-00008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marmor MF, Hood DC, Keating D et al (2003) Guidelines for basic multifocal electroretinography (mfERG). Doc Ophthalmol 106:105–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M et al (2012) ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol 124:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10633-011-9296-8 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chappelow AV, Marmor MF (2002) Effects of pre-adaptation conditions and ambient room lighting on the multifocal ERG. Doc Ophthalmol 105:23–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1015713029443 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kondo M, Miyake Y, Piao CH et al (1999) Amplitude increase of the multifocal electroretinogram during light adaptation. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:2633–2637Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bearse MA, Sutter EE (1996) Imaging localized retinal dysfunction with the multifocal electroretinogram. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 13:634–640. doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.13.000634 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kretschmann U, Tornow RP, Zrenner E (1998) Multifocal ERG reveals long distance effects of a local bleach in the retina. Vis Res 38:1567–1571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Browning DJ, Lee C (2014) Test–retest variability of multifocal electroretinography in normal volunteers and short-term variability in hydroxychloroquine users. Clin Ophthalmol 8:1467–1473. doi: 10.2147/opth.s66528 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gundogan FC, Sobaci G, Bayraktar MZ (2008) Intra-sessional and inter-sessional variability of multifocal electroretinogram. Doc Ophthalmol 117:175–183. doi: 10.1007/s10633-008-9119-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seiple W, Clemens CJ, Greenstein VC et al (2004) Test–retest reliability of the multifocal electroretinogram and humphrey visual fields in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Doc Ophthalmol 109:255–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandip Suresh
    • 1
  • Brian J. Tienor
    • 1
  • Scott D. Smith
    • 4
  • Michael S. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Minnesota Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of Minnesota Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Minnesota Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA
  4. 4.Cleveland Clinic Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations