Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To compare the patterns of local cone and rod system impairment in patients with progressive cone dystrophy (CD) using psychophysical and electrophysiological techniques. METHODS: Local cone system function was assessed by measuring cone system thresholds (visual fields) and cone-mediated multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs). Rod system function was assessed by measuring rod system thresholds (visual fields) and rod-mediated mfERGs. The results in a group of eight patients with CD were compared with those in an age-similar control group. RESULTS: All the patients had abnormal cone system visual field thresholds and cone-mediated mfERGs. Cone system psychophysical thresholds were elevated for targets presented within the central 10 degrees, but were within normal limits for targets at peripheral locations. Cone-mediated mfERG measures of amplitude scale and time scale were abnormal for most of the hexagons tested. Most of the rod-mediated psychophysical thresholds and mfERGs were within normal limits. Rod system losses tended to be patchy and scattered throughout the area tested. CONCLUSIONS: There was poor correspondence among local measures of cone and rod system losses in these patients with CD. The results suggest that the spatial pattern of cone system losses in this disease differs from the spatial pattern of rod system losses

The multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) has been commonly used as a method for obtaining objective visual fields. Although qualitative comparisons have been good, quantitative comparisons between the results from mfERG and the results from Humphrey Visual Field Analyser (HVFA) have found variable degrees of agreement depending upon the mfERG response parameter examined and/or the disease studied. Lack of agreement may be due to differences in methodology, differences in the sites of response generation, and/or differences derived from comparing suprathreshold versus threshold responses. In addition, the two procedures are performed at different levels of adaptation. We developed an approach for matching stimulus parameters and compared mfERG and psychophysical thresholds to assess the effects of technique and level of adaptation on the two responses. Psychophysical and mfERG thresholds were obtained as a function of the adaptation level (1.5-4.0 log td) and retinal location. The derived increment threshold-versus-intensity functions for both measures were fitted using the equation logT=logT(0)+log((A+A(0))/A(0))(n). We found that the values of A(0) for the mfERG data were one log unit higher than those for the psychophysical data. In addition, the value of the slope (n) for the mfERG data was shallower (0.8) than that of the psychophysical data (1.0). Predictions were made about comparisons of HVFA threshold and mfERG amplitude data in patients with retinal disease based upon a two-site model of adaptation. The data for some groups of patients could be best-fitted with a model of a disease acting at a site distal to all gain changes, whereas data from other patients were best fitted with a model of a disease acting at a site proximal to all retinal gain. The relationship between the Humphrey visual field threshold losses and mfERG amplitude reductions depends upon the site and mechanism of a particular disease process and the model of retinal gain assumed. In no case is a one-to-one relationship between the losses in the two measures predicted

PURPOSE. To compare local cone and rod system function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) using electrophysiological and psychophysical techniques. METHODS. Cone-mediated multifocal electroretinograms (M-ERGs), cone system threshold visual fields, rod-mediated M-ERGs, and rod system threshold visual fields were measured in seven patients with RP. RESULTS. All the patients had normal cone system visual field thresholds and normal cone-mediated M-ERG implicit times within the central 5 degrees. Both cone-mediated responses were abnormal at some peripheral retinal locations. There were significant correlations among cone system amplitude, timing, and visual field loss. All the patients had some retinal areas where the rod-mediated M-ERG amplitudes were not measurable. In areas where they were measurable, these rod-mediated M-ERG responses were often within normal limits for amplitude and timing. In contrast to the cone system data, there were no significant relationships between rod-mediated M-ERG measures and rod system threshold elevations. The cone and rod system psychophysical thresholds showed regional correspondence; the amplitude-scale and time-scale measures of the M-ERG did not. CONCLUSIONS. The results indicate that there was better local correspondence between psychophysical and electrophysiological measures in the cone system than in the rod system in patients with RP. In addition, the psychophysical measures of cone and rod system function showed better correspondence than did the electrophysiological measures

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of focal photocoagulation on retinal function in the macular and perimacular areas in patients with diabetes who have clinically significant macular edema. METHODS: Eleven patients were assessed after focal laser treatment. Multifocal electroretinogram (ERG) and full-field ERG techniques were used to evaluate the effects of treatment on macular, paramacular, and peripheral retinal function. A modified visual field technique was used to obtain local threshold fields. The posttreatment results were compared with pretreatment results. Changes in local ERG response amplitudes and implicit times were calculated for each patient and presented as difference fields. The changes in local ERG responses were compared with the changes in local field sensitivity. RESULTS: After treatment, the results of the psychophysical tests suggested little or no change in visual function, but changes in retinal function were observed with the multifocal ERG technique. Local ERG responses showed increases in implicit time and decreases in amplitude, compared with pretreatment values. Timing was affected more than amplitude. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that focal treatment produces changes in retinal function, and these changes are not restricted to the treated macular area

PURPOSE: To evaluate the nature and extent of retinal dysfunction in the macular and surrounding areas that occurs in patients with diabetes with clinically significant macular edema (CSME). METHODS: Eleven patients were evaluated before focal laser treatment. Multifocal electroretinogram (ERG) and full-field ERG techniques were used to assess the effects of diabetic retinopathy and CSME on macular, paramacular, and peripheral retinal function. A modified visual field technique was used to obtain local threshold fields. The relationship between local sensitivity changes and local ERG changes was determined. RESULTS: Local ERG responses were significantly delayed and decreased in amplitude, and timing changes were observed in a larger area of the retina than amplitude changes. Visual field deficits were similarly widespread with marked sensitivity losses occurring in retinal areas with normal ERG amplitudes and in areas that appeared to be free of fundus abnormalities. Despite this similarity and the finding that retinal areas with elevated thresholds have timing delays, timing delays were not good predictors of the degree of threshold elevation. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the widespread nature of timing deficits and visual field deficits that are associated with CSME

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of mutations in the CRX, GUCY2D, and RPE65 genes in patients with Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA). PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-six probands with a clinical diagnosis of LCA were from 9 countries, with the largest subgroup being 39 probands from India. METHODS: Samples were screened with single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis followed by DNA sequencing of 3 genes (CRX, GUCY2D, and RPE65) known to be associated with LCA. RESULTS: Of the 176 probands, 28 (15.9%) harbored possible disease-causing mutations. The relative contribution of each gene to the total number of mutations was as follows: CRX, 2.8%; GUCY2D, 6.3%; and RPE65, 6.8%. No patients who harbored mutations in these genes had associated systemic abnormalities. Molecular diagnosis allowed definitive genetic counseling in a family affected with Best disease and LCA. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular diagnosis may be of benefit to patients affected with LCA. The relative paucity of mutations found in this study suggests that more LCA-associated genes remain to be discovered. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Molecular diagnosis can confirm and clarify the diagnosis of LCA. As genotype data accumulate, clinical phenotypes associated with specific mutations will be established. This will facilitate the counseling of patients on their visual prognosis and the likelihood of associated systemic anomalies