Henrike Marie Nowitzki, Michael B Hoffmann, Khaldoon O Al-Nosairy
{"title":"DTL与皮肤电极记录多焦视网膜电图和多焦光负反应的比较。","authors":"Henrike Marie Nowitzki, Michael B Hoffmann, Khaldoon O Al-Nosairy","doi":"10.1007/s10633-025-10014-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the photopic negative response of the multifocal ERG (mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub>) and the multifocal pattern electroretinogram (mfPERG) using DTL electrode (E<sub>DTL</sub>) vs skin electrode (E<sub>SKIN</sub>) in healthy young and old adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten \"Young\" [20-27 years] and eight \"Old\" [60-72 years] participants took part in this study. The electrophysiological responses were recorded binocularly using E<sub>DTL</sub> and E<sub>SKIN</sub>. 5-way ANOVAs were applied to investigate the following factors on mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub>: i) ELECTRODE, ii) DILATATION, iii) AGE, iv) EYE, and v) ECCENTRICITY. For mfPERG, the same factors, except dilatation, were investigated applying 4-way ANOVAs. These were conducted for amplitude and peak time of different components as well as signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amplitudes of mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub> [mfPERG]-based E<sub>SKIN</sub> recording were reduced to 32-38% [37-38%] compared to E<sub>DTL</sub>, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> . This corresponded to SNR reduction to 80% [60%], <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> . E<sub>SKIN</sub> based responses had shorter peak times, by 0.2-0.5 ms for N1 and P1, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.05</mn></mrow> </math> , [P1: 1.5 ms, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> ]. Both age groups had comparable amplitudes and SNRs, but Young had shorter peak times, by 1.5-2.2 ms for N1 and P1, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.05</mn></mrow> </math> [3.7-4.2 ms for N1, P1, N2, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.05</mn></mrow> </math> ]. Compared to dilated recordings, undilated mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub> amplitudes were reduced to 47-87%, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.01</mn></mrow> </math> , and peak times were delayed by 2.0-11.8 ms, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> .</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>mfPERG & mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub> traces were similar for E<sub>DTL</sub> and E<sub>SKIN</sub>. However, for skin electrodes, amplitudes and SNRs were lower and peak times shorter. E<sub>SKIN</sub> thus seem to be a viable alternative in patients in whom the use of corneal electrodes is precluded, e.g., children and disabled patients, but at the expense of SNR and with reference to E<sub>SKIN</sub> normative data.</p>","PeriodicalId":11207,"journal":{"name":"Documenta Ophthalmologica","volume":" ","pages":"137-153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12137451/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DTL versus skin electrodes in recording of multifocal pattern electroretinogram and multifocal photopic negative response.\",\"authors\":\"Henrike Marie Nowitzki, Michael B Hoffmann, Khaldoon O Al-Nosairy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10633-025-10014-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the photopic negative response of the multifocal ERG (mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub>) and the multifocal pattern electroretinogram (mfPERG) using DTL electrode (E<sub>DTL</sub>) vs skin electrode (E<sub>SKIN</sub>) in healthy young and old adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten \\\"Young\\\" [20-27 years] and eight \\\"Old\\\" [60-72 years] participants took part in this study. The electrophysiological responses were recorded binocularly using E<sub>DTL</sub> and E<sub>SKIN</sub>. 5-way ANOVAs were applied to investigate the following factors on mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub>: i) ELECTRODE, ii) DILATATION, iii) AGE, iv) EYE, and v) ECCENTRICITY. For mfPERG, the same factors, except dilatation, were investigated applying 4-way ANOVAs. These were conducted for amplitude and peak time of different components as well as signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amplitudes of mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub> [mfPERG]-based E<sub>SKIN</sub> recording were reduced to 32-38% [37-38%] compared to E<sub>DTL</sub>, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> . This corresponded to SNR reduction to 80% [60%], <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> . E<sub>SKIN</sub> based responses had shorter peak times, by 0.2-0.5 ms for N1 and P1, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.05</mn></mrow> </math> , [P1: 1.5 ms, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> ]. Both age groups had comparable amplitudes and SNRs, but Young had shorter peak times, by 1.5-2.2 ms for N1 and P1, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.05</mn></mrow> </math> [3.7-4.2 ms for N1, P1, N2, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.05</mn></mrow> </math> ]. Compared to dilated recordings, undilated mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub> amplitudes were reduced to 47-87%, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.01</mn></mrow> </math> , and peak times were delayed by 2.0-11.8 ms, <math><mrow><mi>p</mi> <mo><</mo> <mn>0.001</mn></mrow> </math> .</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>mfPERG & mfERG<sub>PhNR</sub> traces were similar for E<sub>DTL</sub> and E<sub>SKIN</sub>. However, for skin electrodes, amplitudes and SNRs were lower and peak times shorter. E<sub>SKIN</sub> thus seem to be a viable alternative in patients in whom the use of corneal electrodes is precluded, e.g., children and disabled patients, but at the expense of SNR and with reference to E<sub>SKIN</sub> normative data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Documenta Ophthalmologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"137-153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12137451/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Documenta Ophthalmologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-025-10014-5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Documenta Ophthalmologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10633-025-10014-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较DTL电极(EDTL)与皮肤电极(ESKIN)对健康青年和老年人多焦ERG (mfERGPhNR)和多焦图视网膜电图(mfPERG)的光负反应。方法:10名“青年”(20-27岁)和8名“老年”(60-72岁)参与本研究。电生理反应用EDTL和ESKIN双目记录。采用5-way anova分析mfERGPhNR的以下影响因素:i)电极,ii)扩张,iii)年龄,iv)眼睛,v)偏心。对于mfPERG,除扩张外,使用4-way anova分析相同的因素。对不同分量的幅值、峰值时间以及信噪比进行了分析。结果:与EDTL相比,基于mfERGPhNR [mfPERG]的ESKIN记录的振幅降低至32-38% [37-38%],p 0.001。这相当于信噪比降低了80% [60%],p 0.001。基于ESKIN的反应峰时间较短,N1和P1分别缩短0.2-0.5 ms, p < 0.05, [P1: 1.5 ms, p < 0.001]。两个年龄组的振幅和信噪比相当,但Young的峰值时间较短,N1和P1的峰值时间为1.5-2.2 ms, p 0.05 [N1, P1, N2的峰值时间为3.7-4.2 ms, p 0.05]。与扩张记录相比,未扩张记录的mfERGPhNR振幅降低至47-87% (p < 0.01),峰值时间延迟2.0-11.8 ms (p < 0.001)。结论:EDTL和ESKIN的mfPERG和mfERGPhNR迹线相似。然而,对于皮肤电极,振幅和信噪比更低,峰值时间更短。因此,对于不能使用角膜电极的患者,例如儿童和残疾患者,ESKIN似乎是一种可行的替代方案,但要以信噪比为代价,并参考ESKIN规范数据。
DTL versus skin electrodes in recording of multifocal pattern electroretinogram and multifocal photopic negative response.
Objective: To compare the photopic negative response of the multifocal ERG (mfERGPhNR) and the multifocal pattern electroretinogram (mfPERG) using DTL electrode (EDTL) vs skin electrode (ESKIN) in healthy young and old adults.
Methods: Ten "Young" [20-27 years] and eight "Old" [60-72 years] participants took part in this study. The electrophysiological responses were recorded binocularly using EDTL and ESKIN. 5-way ANOVAs were applied to investigate the following factors on mfERGPhNR: i) ELECTRODE, ii) DILATATION, iii) AGE, iv) EYE, and v) ECCENTRICITY. For mfPERG, the same factors, except dilatation, were investigated applying 4-way ANOVAs. These were conducted for amplitude and peak time of different components as well as signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR).
Results: Amplitudes of mfERGPhNR [mfPERG]-based ESKIN recording were reduced to 32-38% [37-38%] compared to EDTL, . This corresponded to SNR reduction to 80% [60%], . ESKIN based responses had shorter peak times, by 0.2-0.5 ms for N1 and P1, , [P1: 1.5 ms, ]. Both age groups had comparable amplitudes and SNRs, but Young had shorter peak times, by 1.5-2.2 ms for N1 and P1, [3.7-4.2 ms for N1, P1, N2, ]. Compared to dilated recordings, undilated mfERGPhNR amplitudes were reduced to 47-87%, , and peak times were delayed by 2.0-11.8 ms, .
Conclusions: mfPERG & mfERGPhNR traces were similar for EDTL and ESKIN. However, for skin electrodes, amplitudes and SNRs were lower and peak times shorter. ESKIN thus seem to be a viable alternative in patients in whom the use of corneal electrodes is precluded, e.g., children and disabled patients, but at the expense of SNR and with reference to ESKIN normative data.
期刊介绍:
Documenta Ophthalmologica is an official publication of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. The purpose of the journal is to promote the understanding and application of clinical electrophysiology of vision. Documenta Ophthalmologica will publish reviews, research articles, technical notes, brief reports and case studies which inform the readers about basic and clinical sciences related to visual electrodiagnosis and means to improve diagnosis and clinical management of patients using visual electrophysiology. Studies may involve animals or humans. In either case appropriate care must be taken to follow the Declaration of Helsinki for human subject or appropriate humane standards of animal care (e.g., the ARVO standards on Animal Care and Use).