Comparing the RETeval® portable ERG device with more traditional tabletop ERG systems in normal subjects and selected retinopathies.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to determine if ISCEV standard-like ERGs recorded with the LKC RETeval® portable ERG unit compared to those obtained using the more traditional tabletop unit. METHODS: ERGs recorded from normal subjects and patients affected with retinal ON and OFF pathway anomalies were compared. Analysis included peak time and amplitude measurements as well as time-frequency domain analysis with the discrete wavelet transform of waveforms obtained with the two systems. RESULTS: Although both systems were similarly able to record reliable and highly reproducible ERG responses, there were major discrepancies in ERG responses between the portable and tabletop units, pointing toward a weaker stimulation of the retinal OFF pathway with the portable RETeval® unit. CONCLUSION: The portable RETeval® unit appears to be able to record highly reproducible and diagnostically useful clinical ERGs, albeit with some significant differences in waveform composition compared to those obtained with more standard tabletop systems. Given the unknown origin of these waveform discrepancies, if left uncorrected, these differences could potentially lead to erroneous interpretation when used in the clinical context and/or compared to ERGs recorded using more traditional table top units. Clearly, more research is warranted before handheld devices, such as the RETeval®, can be homologated as a diagnostically sound ERG devices.

Comparison of electroretinographic measurements between tabletop and handheld stimulators in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: To compare full-field electroretinography (ffERG) parameters obtained from handheld and tabletop electroretinography (ERG) devices in normal subjects. METHODS: Twenty volunteers underwent ffERG using a tabletop and handheld stimulator. The responses obtained from the right eyes were compared. The coefficient of variation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were derived to assess inter- and intra-individual reliability. RESULTS: The b-wave in the rod response, a- and b-waves in the maximal combined response, a-wave in the cone response, and the 30-Hz flicker response showed significantly greater amplitudes when recorded with the tabletop stimulator than with the handheld stimulator. The implicit time of response (ITR) in the 30-Hz flicker response was longer when recorded with the handheld stimulator than when recorded with the tabletop stimulator. With regard to amplitude, the ICC indicated moderate-to-high reliability in the measurement of the b-wave in the rod response, and a- and b-waves in the maximal combined response. With regard to ITR, measurement of the b-wave in the rod response and a-wave in the maximal combined response showed moderate-to-high reliability. CONCLUSION: Despite the significantly lower ERG amplitude measurements recorded by the handheld stimulator, there were no significant differences in variability between the two stimulators.