Role of electrophysiologal studies for detection of simulation and aggravation in ophthalmology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/AMB-2023-0043Keywords:
electrophysiology, electroretinography, visual evoked potentials, aggravation, simulationAbstract
Objective: To present the importance of the electrophysiological studies for detection of malingering and aggravation in ophthalmology. Materials and methods: Six eyes of three patients underwent a complete clinical examination, fundus-autofl uorescence (FAF), fl uorescein angiography (FA), optical coherence tomography (OCT), visual fi eld testing, electrophysiological (EF) studies – full-fi eld, multifocal and pattern electroretinography (ff ERG, mfERG and PERG) and visual evoked potentials (VEPs), for detection of simulation or aggravation. Results: After the electrophysiological studies’ results, which are objective and non-manipulable, we purposefully reviewed and repeated some of the tests already done, which allowed a comprehensive interpretation of the results. It turned out that discrete changes in targeted search can be detected in several of the studies performed, which greatly facilitates the correct diagnosis. Conclusion: EF studies are objective methods for studying the visual analyzer’s function, that can not be manipulated, which makes them indispensable for detecting simulation and aggravation in ophthalmology. A detailed extensive study of the degree of simulation and aggravation among the ophthalmological patients is needed, which will enrich our knowledge and make us more precise in our expertise.
References
Fishman GA, Birch DG, Holder GE et al. Electrophysiologic testing in disorders of the retina, optic nerve and visual pathway. 2nd ed., The Foundation of the American Academy of Ophthalmoilogy, Opthalmology monographs, 2001, 6-270.
Bach M, Brigell MG, Hawlina M et al. ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography (PERG) (2012 update). Doc Ophthalmol, 2013, 126, 1-7.
Hood DC, Bach M, Brigell M et al. ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) (2011 edition). Doc Ophthalmol, 2012, 124(1), 1- 13.
Lamb BL. Full-fi eld electroretinogram. In: Lam BL, ed. Lam, Byron L. Boca Raton, Taylor & Francis, 2005. 1-64.
McCulloch DL, Marmor MF, Brigell MG at al. ISCEV Standard for full-fi eld clinical electroretinography (2015 update). Doc Ophthalmol, 2015, 130, 1–12.
Мermeklieva E. Matveev M. Electrophysiological methods for study of changes in visual analyzer in patients with diabetes mellitus. Int J Bioautom, 2017, 21(1), 69-102.
Pescosolido N, Barbato A, Stefanucci A et al. Role of electrophysiology in the early diagnosis and follow-up of diabetic retinopathy. J Diab Res, 2015, Article ID319692, 8 pages.
Zueva MV. Fundamental ophthalmology: the role of electrophysiological studies. Vestn Oftalmol, 2014, 130(6), 28-36.
Sheludchenko VM, Current trends in the development of functional studies in ophthalmology. Vestn Oftalmol, 2006, 122(1), 51-53.
Gruber H. Limitations and disadvantages of methods of proving simulation or aggravation of symptoms. Neuro-Ophthalmol, 2009, 2 (4), 293-295.
Streppel M. Brusis T. Simulation and aggravation in ENT medical examinations. A prospective study. HNO, 2007, 5, 7-14.
Hamilton R, Bach M, Heinrich SP et al. VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review. Doc Ophthalmol, 2021, 142, 25–74.
Gundogan FC, Tas A, Sobaci G. Cone Dystrophy with Rod Supernormal Electroretinogram: KCNV2 Mutation, J Retinavitreu, 2011, 19(4), 282-284.
Friedburg C, Allen CP, Mason PJ et al. Contribution of cone photoreceptors and postreceptoral mechanisms to the human photopic electroretinogram, J Physiol, 2004, 556, 819–834.
Ajoy V, Robson AG, Holder GE. Pathognomonic (Diagnostic) ERGs a review and update. Retina, the J of retinal and vitr diseases, 2013, 33(1), 5-12.
Creel DJ. The Electroretinogram and Electro-oculogram: Clinical Applications, Webvision, the organization of the retina and visual system, http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/electrophysiology/the-electroretinogram-clinical-pplications/15
Whatham AR, Nguyen V, Zhu Y et al. The value of clinical electrophysiology in the assessment of the eye and visual system in the era of advanced imaging. Clin and Exp Optometry, 2014. 97, 99–115.
Hood DC, Zhang X. Multifocal ERG and VEP responses and visual fi elds: comparing disease-related changes. Doc Ophthalmol, 2000, 100, 115-137.
Strasser T, Nasser F, Langrová H et al. Objective assessment of visual acuity: a refi ned model for analyzing the sweep VEP..Doc Ophthalmol. 2019, 138(2), 97-116.
Zheng X, Xu G, Zhang K et al. Assessment of Human Visual Acuity Using Visual Evoked Potential: A Review. Du C.Sensors (Basel). 2020, 20(19), 5542.
Shi LF, Hall AJ, Thompson DA. Full-fi eld stimulus threshold testing: a scoping review of current practice. Eye (Lond). 2023, Jul 13. doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02636-3.
Chen JZ, Li CC, Li SH et al. A feasibility study for objective evaluation of visual acuity based on pattern-reversal visual evoked potentials and other related visual parameters with machine learning algorithm. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023, 23(1), 293.
Cremone-Caira A, Braverman Y, MacNaughton GA et al. Reduced Visual Evoked Potential Amplitude in Autistic Children with Co-Occurring Features of Attention-Defi cit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Autism Dev Disord. 2023 May 30. doi: 10.1007/s10803-023-06005-7. Online ahead of print.
Jia FQ, Luo FL, Xiong YH et al. Forensic Study on Objective Evaluation of Visual Acuity of Ametropia with the Event-related Potential P3. Curr Med Sci. 2023, 43(3), 609-614.
Gundogan FC, Yolcu. U. Clinical Ocular Electrophysiology, chapter 5, 107-129, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57609
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format under these terms.
Journal Acta Medica Bulgarica 
