Value of Visual Evoked Potentials in Indicating an Operation in Sellar Space-Occupying Processes
The value of visual evoked potentials (VEP) in the control and therapy of processes afflicting the visual pathways is not clear. The response can be altered by a number of factors which hinder an accurate interpretation (Barnett et al. 1980; Blom et al. 1980; Dustman and Beck 1969; Harter and White 1968; Hawkes and Stow 1981; Sokol et al. 1981). Such factors include check size, luminescence, visual field, state of refraction, and pupillary diameter. Their influence on the various VEPs — pattern reversal (PREP) and flash-evoked potentials (FEP), half- or full-field stimulation — is well known but difficult to distinguish from other influences, e.g., from pathological influences on the visual response. Differing results have therefore been published concerning especially the validity of side differences in localizing the pathological process. Some authors recommend VEP as the most sensitive procedure in the control of tumor patients, even in preserving visual acuity during operation (Feinsod et al. 1976).
KeywordsVisual Acuity Pituitary Adenoma Visual Field Defect Visual Evoke Potential Pupillary Diameter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- American Electroencephalographic Society (1984) American electroencephalographic guidelines for clinical evoked potential studies. J Clin Neurophysiol 1: 3–53Google Scholar
- Barnett AB, Friedman SL, Weiss IP, Ohlrich ES, Shanks B, Lodge A (1980) VEP development in infancy and early childhood. A longitudinal study. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 49: 467–489Google Scholar
- Hawkes CH, Stow B (1981) Pupil size and the pattern evoked visual response. J Neurol 44: 90–91Google Scholar