Publication:
Assessing nonsedated handheld cone flicker electroretingram as a screening test in pediatric patients: comparison to sedated conventional cone flicker electroretinogram

dc.contributor.authorCarla J. Osigianen_US
dc.contributor.authorSara F. Graceen_US
dc.contributor.authorKara M. Cavuotoen_US
dc.contributor.authorWilliam J. Feueren_US
dc.contributor.authorMehdi Tavakolien_US
dc.contributor.authorPiangporn Saksiriwuttoen_US
dc.contributor.authorMu Liuen_US
dc.contributor.authorHilda Capoen_US
dc.contributor.authorByron L. Lamen_US
dc.contributor.otherThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillen_US
dc.contributor.otherBascom Palmer Eye Instituteen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T10:09:24Z
dc.date.available2020-01-27T10:09:24Z
dc.date.issued2019-02-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2019 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Purpose: To assess the RETeval (LKC Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD) handheld electroretingram (ERG) device as a screening tool for cone dysfunction in pediatric patients by comparing it to conventional ERG. Methods: Patients scheduled for ERG under general anesthesia (GA) underwent three tests: (1) RETeval standard 30 Hz cone flicker ERG using skin electrodes prior to GA, (2) E3 Diagnosys (Diagnosys LLC, Lowell, MA) conventional complete standard protocol full-field ERG using bipolar contact lens electrodes and handheld stimulus under GA, and (3) repeat RETeval testing under GA. The 30 Hz cone flicker amplitudes and implicit times from the three methods were compared. Negative and positive predictive values were calculated by applying a previously established 5 μV amplitude cut-off. Results: Thirty patients ≤18 years of age were enrolled. Impaired conventional ERGs were found in 18 patients. Compared to conventional ERG under GA, RETeval cone flicker amplitudes were smaller before GA (mean difference, −42.2 ± 45.3 μV) and under GA (−37.1 ± 44.5 μV), likely due to skin electrode; and implicit times were shorter before GA (−1.06 ± 2.83 ms) and longer under GA (1.28 ± 4.12 ms), likely due to GA. Comparing RETeval responses before and under GA, the amplitudes were lower (−3.05 ± 6.82 μV), and implicit times were shorter (−2.25 ± 3.28 μV) before GA. Overall, the positive predictive value of the RETeval was 85%; the negative predictive value, 90%. Conclusions: The unsedated handheld RETeval 30 Hz cone flicker ERG is a feasible screening test for detecting cone dysfunction in pediatric patients. Full-protocol ERG is needed when screening ERG is reduced, equivocal, or clinically warranted.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of AAPOS. Vol.23, No.1 (2019), 34.e1-34.e5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jaapos.2018.09.009en_US
dc.identifier.issn15283933en_US
dc.identifier.issn10918531en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85060875248en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/51918
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85060875248&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleAssessing nonsedated handheld cone flicker electroretingram as a screening test in pediatric patients: comparison to sedated conventional cone flicker electroretinogramen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85060875248&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections