Состояние зрительных вызванных потенциалов электрической активности мозга у детей 5-8 лет с ретинопатией недоношенных

S.V. Katsan; O.Iu. Terletska; A.O. Adakhovska

doi:10.31288/oftalmolzh20203915

Authors

S.V. Katsan SI "The Filatov Institute of Eye Diseases and Tissue Therapy of the NAMS of Ukraine"; Odesa (Ukraine)
O.Iu. Terletska SI "The Filatov Institute of Eye Diseases and Tissue Therapy of the NAMS of Ukraine"; Odesa (Ukraine)
A.O. Adakhovska SI "The Filatov Institute of Eye Diseases and Tissue Therapy of the NAMS of Ukraine"; Odesa (Ukraine)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31288/oftalmolzh20203915

Keywords:

retinopathy of prematurity, visual evoked potentials

Abstract

Background: The technique of visual evoked potentials (VEPs) is the only non-invasive method that can provide important diagnostic information regarding the functional integrity of the visual system.

Purpose: To assess the electrical visual system activity in full-term children versus those with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) using flash and pattern VEPs.

Material and Methods: Sixty-four 5 to 8-year-old children (120 eyes) were examined, and their medical records were retrospectively reviewed and divided into three groups: Group 1 (full-term controls), 11 children (22 eyes); Group 2 (regressive ROP), 26 children (50 eyes), and Group 3 (treated with laser for type 1 pre-threshold ROP or aggressive posterior ROP), 27 children (48 eyes). Flash and pattern VEPs were recorded in all subjects.

Results: There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in P1 latency between Group 1 and Group 3, but not between Group 1 and Group 2 or between Group 2 and Group 3. In addition, there was a significant difference (p < 0.005) in P1 amplitude between Group 1 and Group 2, and between Group 2 and Group 3, but not between Group 2 and Group 3. Moreover, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in P100 latency for 1-degree and 0.15-degree check sizes between Group 1 and Group 3, but not between Group 1 and Group 2 or between Group 2 and Group 3. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in P100 amplitude for 1-degree check size between Group 1 and Group 2, and between Group 1 and Group 3, but not between Group 2 and Group 3. Finally, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in P100 amplitude for 0.15-degree check size between Group 1 and Group 2, and between Group 1 and Group 3, but not between Group 2 and Group 3.

Conclusion: First, latencies and amplitudes of the P100 component of pattern VEP, and of the P1 component of the fVEP were determined for 5 to 8-year-old full-term children with the use of RETIscan (Roland Consult). Second, VEP characteristics (latencies and amplitudes of the P100 component of pattern VEP, and of the P1 component of the fVEP) for 5 to 8-year-old children who underwent timely laser photocoagulation (LPC) for ROP were found to be within the age-related norm. Finally, there was no significant difference in VEP characteristics between 5 to 8-year-old children with spontaneously regressed ROP and their peers who underwent LPC for severe ROP, which points to timeliness and efficacy of the performed LPC.

References

1.Madan A, Jan JE, Good WV. Visual development in preterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005 Apr;47(4):276-80.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162205000514

2.Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software 'EZR' for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;48(3):452-8.https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244

3.Magoon EH, Robb RM. Development of myelin in human optic nerve and tract. A light and electron microscopic study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981 Apr;99(4):655-9.https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1981.03930010655011

4.Park KA, Oh SY. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in prematurity is correlated with stage of retinopathy of prematurity. Eye (Lond). 2015 Dec; 29(12): 1594-1602.https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.166

5. Tsueineshi S, Casaer P. Effects of preterm extrauterine visuak expirience on the development of the human visual system: a flash VEP study. Dev Med Child Neurol.2000 Oct;42(10):663-8.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162200001225

6.Gur'ianov VG, Liakh II, Parii VD, Korotkyi OV, Chalyi OV, Chalyi KO, Tsekhmister IV. [Analysis of the results of medical studies using EZR (R-statistics) software: Biostatistics training manual]. Kyiv: Vistka; 2018. Ukrainian.

7.Kogoleva LV. [System for preventing and predicting vision impairment in retinopathy of prematurity]. [Dissertation for fulfillment of a Dr Sc (Med) degree]. Moscow: Helmholtz Research Institute of Eye Disease; 2016. Russian.

8.Koshelev DI, Galautdinov MF, Vakhmyanina AA. [The use of flash visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual system functions]. Vesnik OGU. 2014; 12(173):181-7. Russian.

9.Safonov DL. [Diagnostic and prognostic value of evoked potentials in pediatric epileptics]. [Thesis for fulfillment of a Cand Sc (Med) degree]. Moscow: Russian Medical Academy of Post-graduate Education; 2011. Russian.

10.Faizullinа AS, Zainutdinova GKh, Ryskulova EK. [Study of the visual pathway function in cicatricial retinopathy of prematurity]. Tochka zreniia. Vostok-Zapad. 2016;3:141-6. Russian.