This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To derive a visual-evoked potential (VEP) technique for identifying visual field defects in children with epilepsy treated with vigabatrin and unable to perform perimetry.
Background: Studies have linked vigabatrin to a specific pattern of visual field loss. Few studies have included the pediatric population because of difficulties in assessing the visual field by perimetry below a developmental age of 9 years.
Methods: A field-specific VEP was developed with a central (0° to 5° radius) and peripheral stimulus (30° to 60° radius). Stimuli consisted of black and white checks that increased in size with eccentricity. Checks reversed at different rates, allowing separate central and peripheral responses to be recorded. Five vigabatrin-treated young adults with field defects were identified using this stimulus. Electroretinograms (ERG) were recorded to examine the effects of vigabatrin on retinal function. Thirty-nine children aged 3 to 15 years were included in the study. Twelve patients were examined by both the field-specific stimulus test and perimetry. The diagnostic performance of the field-specific stimulus test was compared with that of perimetry.
Results: Thirty-five of 39 children complied with the field-specific stimulus, 26 of 39 complied with the ERG, and 12 of 39 complied with perimetry. Using the summed amplitude of the peripheral response from O2 and O1, responses below 10 μV were deemed abnormal. The field-specific stimulus identified 3 of 4 abnormal perimetry results and 7 of 8 normal perimetry results, giving a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 87.5%. When comparing perimetry results with the ERG parameters, only the 30-Hz flicker amplitude, with a cutoff below 70 μV, gave a useful indication of visual field loss.
Conclusion: Field-specific VEP are well tolerated by children older than 2 years of age and are sensitive and specific in identifying vigabatrin-associated peripheral field defects.
- Received July 17, 2001.
- Accepted January 12, 2002.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
