Value of Visual Evoked Potentials in Indicating an Operation in Sellar Space-Occupying Processes

  • H.-E. Nau
  • M. Foerster
  • F. Rauhut
  • W. Engel
  • F. Rimbach
Conference paper

Abstract

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).

Keywords

Adenoma Neurol Refraction Prep Acromegaly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Electroencephalographic Society (1984) American electroencephalographic guidelines for clinical evoked potential studies. J Clin Neurophysiol 1: 3–53Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Blom JL, Barth PG, Visser SL (1980) The visual evoked potential in the first six years of life. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 48: 395–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dustman RE, Beck EC (1969) The effect of the maturation and aging on the wave form of visually evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 26: 2–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feinsod M, Selhorst JB, Hoyt WF, Wilson CB (1976) Monitoring optic nerve function during craniotomy. J Neurosurg 44: 29–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halliday AM, Halliday E, Kriss A, McDonald WI, Mushin J (1976) The pattern-evoked potential in compression of the anterior visual pathways. Brain 99: 357–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harter MR, White CT (1968) Effects of contour sharpness and check-size on visually evoked potentials. Vis Res 8: 701–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hawkes CH, Stow B (1981) Pupil size and the pattern evoked visual response. J Neurol 44: 90–91Google Scholar
  9. Sokol S, Moskowitz A, Towle VL (1981) Age-related changes in the latency of the visual evoked potential: influence of check size. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 51: 559–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-E. Nau
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Foerster
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Rauhut
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. Engel
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Rimbach
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.EssenGermany
  2. 2.Germany

Personalised recommendations