Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:06:38.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolution of Visual Evoked Potentials in Optic Neuritis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Irvin H. Heinrichs  and
Donald R. McLean
Irvin H. Heinrichs
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, University of Alberta, Edmonton
Donald R. McLean*
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, University of Alberta, Edmonton
*
2E3.16 Walter Mackenzie Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2B7
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The visual evoked potential (VEP) latency was either abnormally prolonged or absent in the involved eye of 47 patients with optic neuritis. Twenty-two of these patients with known multiple sclerosis (MS), had similar abnormalities to 25 patients with no clinical evidence of MS. Follow-up clinical assessment and VEP were done 10 to 42 (mean 22) months later in 34 patients. In 15 of 34 patients with no VEP from the involved eye during initial examination, 6 returned to normal, 8 had prolonged latencies and 1 still had no response at follow up. Of 19 patients who initially had prolonged latencies in the involved eye, 6 returned to normal, 11 had prolonged latencies and 2 had no response at follow up. The VEP is helpful in confirming the diagnosis of ON. The examination must be performed when the patient is symptomatic or soon thereafter as 35% of our patients with an abnormal initial VEP had a normal VEP at follow up. This normalization was not related to the severity of the initial VEP abnormality.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , November 1988 , pp. 394 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1988

References

REFERENCES

1.Wildeberg, HGH, Van Lith, GHM. Color vision and visually evoked responses (VEP) in the recovery period of optic neuritis. Mod Probi Ophthalmol 1975; 17: 320–324.Google Scholar
2.Matthews, WB, Small, DG, Small, M, et al. Pattern reversal evoked visual potential in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1977; 40: 1009–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Halliday, AM, McDonald, WI, Mushin, J. Delayed visual evoked response in optic neuritis. Lancet 1972; 1: 982–985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kjaer, M. Visual evoked potentials in normal subjects and patients with multible sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 1980; 62: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Mallecourt, J, Chain, F, Leblanc, M, et al. Analysis of visual evoked response in multiple sclerosis. Biomedicine 1980; 32: 210–216.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Chiappa, KH, Ropper, AM. Evoked potentials in clinical medicine.? Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1140–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Bynke, H, Rosen, I, Sandberg-Woolheim, M. Correlation of visual evoked potentials, ophthalmological and neurological findings after unilateral optic neuritis. Acta Ophthalmol 1980; 58, 5: 673–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kirkham, TH, Coupland, SG. Multiple regression analysis of diagnostic predictors in optic nerve disease. Can J Neurol Sci 1981; 8: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Rose, AS, Ellison, GW, Myers, LW. Criteria for the clinical diagnosis of M.S. Neurology 1976; 26: 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.McDonald, WI, Halliday, AM. Diagnosis and classification of multiple sclerosis. Br Med Bull 1977; 33: 4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Compston, DAS, Batchelor, JR, Earl, CJ, et al. Factors influencing the risk of multiple sclerosis developing in patients with optic neuritis. Brain 1978; 101: 495–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.McAlpine, D, Compston, N. Some aspects of the natural history of disseminated sclerosis. Q J Med 1952; 21: 135–167.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Cohen, MM, Lessell, S, Wolf, PA. A prospective study of the risk of developing multiple sclerosis in uncomplicated optic neuritis. Neurology 1979; 29: 208–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Chiappa, KH, Young, RR. Evoked responses. Overused, Underused or Misused? Arch Neurol 1985; 42: 76–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Eisen, A, Cracco, RQ. Overuse of evoked potentials: Caution Neurology 1983; 33: 618–621.Google Scholar