Comparison of Amplitude and Implicit Time Between Jet Electrode, Dencott Electrode and Dawson-Trick-Litzkow Electrode in Multifocal Electroretinography Examination in Adult
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Multifocal electroretinography (ERG) is an examination which measures retinal electrical activity as a response to lighting stimulus and allows simultaneous recording in many topographic locations. Various electrodes have been developed to balance examination accuracy and also patients’ comfort. The objective of this study is to establish normal values of multifocal ERG and to compare the values and the comfort level using Jet, Dencott and DTL electrode in Indonesian Adult.
Methods: Through convenient sampling 49 normal Indonesian subjects between 19 and 49 years old were selected. Multifocal ERG amplitudes and implicit time values were measured according to recommendation by the ISCEV. Evaluation consisted of N1 and P1 wave in ring 1 to 5. after the examination, all subjects filled in a questionnaire about comfort level, adopted from the visual analog scale.
Result: We observed a statistically significant difference in multifocal ERG normal values between electrode with higher wave amplitudes and longer implicit time in Jet and Dencott electrodes compared to DTL electrodes. Jet and DTL electrodes are more comfortable than Dencott electrodes for Indonesian adults in multifocal ERG.
Conclusion: DTL electrodes give the lowest wave amplitude and the shortest implicit time and are the most comfortable electrode compared to Jet and Dencott electrodes, in multifocal ERG in Indonesian adults.
Keywords
Multifocal electroretinography, Jet electrode, Dencott, Dawson-Trick-Litzkow, comfort level, normal Indonesian adult.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
2. Karanjina R, TenHove MW, Coupland SG. Electroretinograms and normative data. In: Belusic G, editor. Electroretinograms. Rijeka: InTech; 2011. p. 1-238.
3. Wolpert K, Tsang S. Electroretinography. Shanghai: InTech; 2011 [cited 2017 September 17]. Available from: intechopen.
4. Keating D, Parks S. Multifocal techniques. In: Heckenlively R, G.B.Arden, editors. Principle and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009. p. 319.
5. Lai TY, Chan WM, Lai RY, Ngai JW, Li H, Lam DS. The clinical applications of multifocal electroretinography: A systemic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52:61-96.
6. Bock M, Andrassi M, Belitsky L, Lorenz B. A comparisson two multifocal ERG systems. Doc Ophthalmol. 1998 (97(20):157-78.
7. Marmor MF, Hood DC, Keating D, Kondo M, Seeliger MW, Miyake Y. Guidelines for basic multifocal electroretinography (mfERG). Documenta Ophthalmologica. 2003;106:105-15.
8. Marmor MF. Standard for clinical electroretinography. In: Heckenlively JR, Arden GB, editors. Principles and practice of clinical electrophysiology of vision Cambridge: MIT press; 2006. p. 290-4.
9. Hood DC, Odel JG, Chen CS, Winn BJ. The Multifocal Electrogram. J Neuro Ophthalmol. 2003;23:225-35.
10. Azad R, Ghatak U, Sharma YR, Chandra P. Multifocal electroretinogram in normal emmetropic subject: Correlation with optical coherence tomography. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012;60:49-52.
11. Nagamoto A, Nao-i N, Maruiwa F, Arai M, Sawada A. Multifocal ielectroretinogram in normal subjects. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1998;42:129-35.
12. Mohidin N, Yap MK, Jacobs RJ. The repeatability and variability of the multifocal electroretinogram for four different electrodes. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1997;17:530-5.
13. Marmor MF, Zrenner E. Standard for clinical electroretinograhpy. Doc Ophthalmol. 1995;89:199-210.
14. Yin H, Pardue MT. Performance of the DTL electrode compared to the Jet contact lens electrode in clinical testing. Documenta Ophthalmologica. 2004;108:77-86.
15. Esakowitz L, Kriss A, Shawkat F. A comparison of flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian Allen, Jet, C-Glide, Gold Foil, DTL, and skin electrodes. Eye. 1993;7:169-71.
16. McCulloch DL, VanBommel GB, Borchert MS. Comparisons of contact lens, foil, fiber and skin electrodes for pattern electroretingrams. Doc Ophthalmol. 1998;94:327-40.
17. Gondosari TY. Perbandingan elektroda Dawson-Trick-Litzkow, elektroda Jet, dan elektroda Dencott pada pemeriksaan elektroretinografi full field di populasi orang dewasa normal usia 19-49 tahun di Rumah Sakit Umum Pusat Nasional Cipto Mangunkusumo. Jalarta: University of Indonesia; 2016.
18. Hebert M, Vaegan, Lachapelle P. Reproducibility of ERG responses obtained with the DTL electrode. Vision Research. 1999;39:1069-70.
19. Kuze M, Uji Y. Comparison Between Dawson,Trick, and Litzkow Electrode and Contact Lens Electrodes Used in Clinical Electroretinography. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2000;44:374-80.
20. Hebert M, Vaegan, Lachapelle P, Dumont M. Reproducibility of electroretinograms recorded with DTL electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol. 1996;91:333-42.
21. Mohidin N, Yap MK, Jacobs RJ. Electrodes for Multifocal Electroretinography (mfERG): A Comparison of Four Electrodes Types. Sains Malaysina 2014;43(7):1089-94.
22. Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M, Keating D, Kondo M, Lyons JS, et al. ISCEV guidelines for clinical multifocal electroretinography (2007 edition). Doc Ophthalmol. 2008;116:1-11.
23. Garcia AG, Munoz-Negrete FJ, Rebolleda G. Variability of the multifocal electroretinogram based on the type and position of the electrode. Doc Ophthalmol. 2016;133:99-108.
24. Simao S, Costa MA, Sun JK, Vaz JC, Simo R. Development of a Normative Database for Multifocal Electroretinography in the Context of a Multicenter Clinical Trial. Ophthalmic Res. 2017;57:107-17.
25. Bartko JJ. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient As A Measure of Reliability. Psychological Report. 1966;19:3-11.
26. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-6