Comparison of sweep visual evoked potential of visual acuity and Snellen visual acuity in healthy and amblyopic children Comparação da acuidade visual por potenciais evocados visuais de varredura e pelo teste de Snellen em crianças saudáveis e ambliópicas


Kasikci M., Kusbeci T., Yavas G., Polat O., Inan U.

Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, cilt.86, sa.6, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 86 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.5935/0004-2749.2021-0130
  • Dergi Adı: Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Adolescent, Amblyopia, Child, Humans, Vision tests, Visual acuity, Visual evoked potentials
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Purpose: To evaluate the visual acuity of healthy and amblyopic children using sweep visual evoked potential and compare the results with those of Snellen visual acuity testing. Methods: A total of 160 children aged 6-17 years were included in the study. Of these, 104 (65%) were aged 7-17 years old, able to verbally communicate, and did not have any systemic or ocular pathology (Group 1). Group 2 included 56 (35%) children aged 6-17 years, able to verbally communicate, and had strabismus or anisometropic amblyopia whose best corrected visual acuity was between 0.1 and 0.8. All subjects underwent a detailed ophthalmological examination and sweep visual evoked potential measurement. Demographic characteristics, ocular findings, best corrected visual acuity, and sweep visual evoked potential results were recorded. Results: In Group 1, the mean and maximum visual acuity values for sweep visual evoked potential were lower than the Snellen best corrected visual acuity (p<0.001, for both, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that in Group 1, the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and mean sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.11 logMAR, and the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and maximum sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.023 logMAR. In Group 2, the mean and maximum sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity were lower than the Snellen best corrected visual acuity (p<0.001 and p=0.009, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and mean sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.16 logMAR, and the distribution of the differences between the Snellen best corrected visual acuity and maximum sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity was ±0.19 logMAR. Conclusions: Sweep visual evoked potential visual acuity measurements have comparable results with Snellen visual acuity measurements. This technique is an objective and reliable method for evaluating visual acuity in children.