Impact of keratoprosthesis implantation on retinal and visual pathway function assessed by electrophysiological testing.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis (BI-Kpro) implantation on retinal and visual pathway function, respectively, assessed by full-field electroretinography (ERG) and visually evoked potentials (VEPs). METHODS: This is a prospective interventional longitudinal study, and patients with BI-Kpro implantation were assessed preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. ERG, flash, and pattern-reversal VEPs (15' and 60' checks) along with visual acuity (VA) were performed. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients (24 to 88 years of age) were included. Mean baseline VA (logMAR) improved from 2.30 to 1.04 at 3 months and to 1.00 at 12 months. Flash VEPs were normal in 6 (46%) patients and in 10 (77%) patients at the 12-month follow-up. PVEP was non-detectable in all patients preoperatively for both check sizes. For 15' check size, 6 (46%) patients showed responses after 3 and 12 months except for 1 patient with normal responses at 12 months with the remaining non-detectable. For 60' checks, 11 (85%) patients had responses 3 months after surgery with only 9 (70%) showing responses at 12 months. Abnormal full-field ERGs were found in all patients preoperatively. Amplitude improvement was found in 10 (77%) patients from baseline to 3 months and in 8 (62%) patients from the 3- to the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this small cohort of patients with BI-Kpro implantation, a remarkable improvement on visual function quantitatively assessed by electrophysiological testing was found in the majority of cases. Visual electrophysiological testing can contribute to objectively assess functional outcomes in this population.

Contribution of objectively measured grating acuity by sweep visually evoked potentials to the diagnosis of unexplained visual loss.

PURPOSE: To investigate the diagnostic contribution of grating visual acuity (GVA) measured by sweep pattern-reversal visually evoked potentials (SPRVEP) in unexplained visual loss (UVL). METHODS: This case-control study included adult patients under suspicion of UVL referred to SPRVEP and transient pattern-reversal visually evoked potentials (TPRVEP) testing. Optotype visual acuity (OVA) was measured by ETDRS 4-meter chart and GVA by SPRVEP. UVL patients were assigned into three distinctive categories, according to the presence of ocular disease, motivation, and electrophysiological evaluation, as follows: exaggerators, malingerers, and psychogenic. Healthy controls and patients with organic visual loss were also tested. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of GVA and TPRVEP parameters. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients with UVL were analyzed: 60 (79.0%) exaggerators, 11 (14.4%) malingerers, and 5 (6.6%) psychogenic. Controls were 49 subjects evaluated for TPRVEP and 28 subjects for SPRVEP. There were 13 patients with organic visual loss enrolled. Mean difference between OVA and GVA was 1.19±0.67 (median=0.84; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.34) in UVL and 0.14 ±0.09 (median= 0.14; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.20) in organic visual loss. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of GVA to distinguish UVL from healthy controls was 0.998 with a cutoff of 0.09 logMAR showing specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 96.0%. CONCLUSIONS: GVA measured by SPRVEP had good diagnostic validity to discriminate patients with unexplained visual loss from healthy controls and patients with organic visual loss, demonstrating its contribution to the diagnosis of this condition.