The Current Role and Prospects of Electrophysiological Research Methods in Ophthalmology. Literature Review

Electrophysiological research today remains an important method for the objective assessment of the functional state of the components of the visual analyzer.

There are methods, for example, OCT, that can objectively assess the structural and anatomical integrity of the retina, however, only indirectly shows functional activity. The undoubted advantage of EFR is the ability, excluding the subjectivity of the subject, to perform a functional topographic assessment of the malfunction of all systems of the visual analyzer. Private electrophysiology of the vision organ is represented by a variety of methods for recording the electrobiological activity of the cells of the visual analyzer: ERG, EOG, VEP, mfERG (multifocal electroretinography), and each option is directed to a separate part of it, therefore, to complete the picture, in particular in research works on animal models may use several techniques. In general, the limitation of EFR is its complexity and many confounding factors that can affect the result, ranging from stimulation parameters to the state of the patient himself. At the same time, the main area of prospective use of electrophysiological research is differential diagnosis, preclinical toxicology and scientific and experimental models. However, in recent decades, the active introduction of registration methods, including the appearance of multifocal electroretinography, as well as changes in the conditions of electrophysiological studies, open up new possibilities for the future evolution of the method. Classical methods for evaluating EFR data, taking into account the growth of data flow, do not provide detailed qualitative and quantitative information about the state of the visual analyzer. This leaves the possibility and the need for the study, optimization and algorithmization of the assessment data of the differentiated criteria inherent for a particular ocular pathology. EFRs require simpler and more adapted protocols for clinical practice, allowing a strictly differentiated approach to the smallest anatomical and functional changes, based on open databases and modern adaptation based on artificial intelligence. 

1. Fercher A.F., Hitzenberger C.K., Drexler W., Kamp G., Sattmann, H. In Vivo Optical Coherence Tomography. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1993;116(1):113– 114. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(14)71762-3

2. Hee M.R. Optical coherence tomography of age-related macular degeneration and choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:1260–1270.

3. Granit R. The components of the retinal action potential in mammals and their relation to the discharge in the optic nerve. J Physiol. 1933;77:207–239.

4. Ohno Y. Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. (1) Overview of the validation study and Draize scores for the evaluation of the tests. Toxicology in Vitro. 1999;13(1):73–98.

5. Kazajkin V.N., Ponomarev V.O., Takhchidi H.P. Modern Aspects of the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Postoperative Endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology in Russia = Oftal’mologiya. 2017;14(1):12–17 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18008/1816-5095-2017-1-12-17

6. Peyman G.A., Lad E.M., Moshfeghi D.M. Intravitreal injection of therapeutic agents. Retina. 2009;29:7:875–912. DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a94f01

7. Shirao Y., Kawasaki K. Retinal Toxicology Study Using Electrophysiological Methods in Rabbits. In: Weisse I., Hockwin O., Green K., Tripathi R.C. (eds) Ocular Toxicology. Springer, Boston, MA. 1995;27–37.

8. Rosolen S.G., Kolomiets B., Varela O., Picaud S. Retinal electrophysiology for toxicology studies: applications and limits of ERG in animals and ex vivo recordings. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2008;60:17–32.

9. Bee W.H., Korte R., Vogel F. Electroretinography in the Non-Human Primate as a Standardized Method in Toxicology. In: Weisse I., Hockwin O., Green K., Tripathi R.C. (eds). Ocular Toxicology. Springer, Boston, MA. 1995;53–61.

10. Bach M., Brigell M.G., Hawlina M., Holder G.E., Johnson M.A., McCulloch D.L., Meigen T., Viswanathan S. ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography (PERG): 2012 update. Doc Ophthalmol. 2013;126:1–7. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-0129353-y

11. Constable P.A., Bach M., Frishman L.J., Jeffrey B.G., Robson A.G. International society for clinical electrophysiology of vision. ISCEV standard for clinical electrooculography. Doc Ophthalmol. 2017;134:1–9. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-017-9573-2

12. Hood D.C., Bach M., Brigell M., Keating D., Kondo M., Lyons J.S., Marmor M.F., McCulloch D.L., Palmowski-Wolfe A.M. ISCEV standard for clinical multifocal electroretinography (mfЭРГ) (2011 edition) Doc Ophthalmol. 2012;124:1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-011-9296-8

13. McCulloch D.L., Marmor M.F., Brigell M.G., Hamilton R., Holder G.E., Tzekov R., Bach M. ISCEV standard for full-field clinical electroretinography. Doc Ophthalmol. 2015;130:1–12. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-014-9473-19

14. Odom J.V., Bach M., Brigell M., Holder G.E., McCulloch D.L., Mizota A., Tormene A.P. ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials. Doc Ophthalmol. 2016;133(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-016-9553-y

15. Brown K.T. The electroretinogram: its components and their origins. Vision Res. 1968;8:633–677.

16. Favilla I., Barry W.R. Ocular electrophysiology: principles and clinical applications. Aust J Ophthalmol. 1981;9:163–167.

17. Perlman I. Relationship between the amplitudes of the b-wave and the awave as a useful index for evaluating the electroretinogram. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983;67:443–448.

18. Tomita T., Yanagida T. Origins of the ERG waves. Vision Res. 1981;21:1703–1707.

19. Borhani H., Peyman G.A., Wafapoor H. Use of vancomycin in vitrectomy infusion solution and evaluation of retinal toxicity. Int Ophthalmol. 1993;17(2):85–88. DOI: 10.1007/BF00942780

20. Sutter E.E. Noninvasive Testing Methods: Multifocal Electrophysiology. In: Dartt DA, editor. Encyclopedia of the Eye. Vol. 3. Oxford: Academic Press. 2010;142–160.

21. Hokazono K., Oyamada M.K., Monteiro M.L. Pattern-reversal electroretinograms for the diagnosis and management of disorders of the anterior visual pathway. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2011;74:222–226. DOI: 10.1590/s0004-27492011000300017

22. Danilicheva V.F. Modern Ophthalmology: A Guide. St. Petersburg: 2009:688 (In Russ.).

23. Maffei L., Fiorentini A., Bisti S., Hollander H. Pattern ERG in the monkey after section of the optic nerve. Exp Brain Res. 1985;59:423–425. DOI: 10.1007/BF00230925

24. Porciatti V., Saleh M., Nagaraju M. The pattern electroretinogram as a tool to monitor progressive retinal ganglion cell dysfunction in the DBA/2J mouse model of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:745–751. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0733

25. Marmor M.F., Kellner U., Lai T.Y., Lyons J.S., Mieler W.F. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(2):415–422. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.11.017

26. Michaelides M., Stover N.B., Francis P.J., Weleber R.G. Retinal toxicity associated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine: risk factors, screening, and progression despite cessation of therapy. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(1):30–39. DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.321

27. Renner A.B., Kellner U., Tillack H., Kraus H., Foerster M.H. Recording of both VEP and multifocal ERG for evaluation of unexplained visual loss. Doc Ophthalmol. 2005;111:149–157. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-005-5362-4

28. Betsuin Y., Mashima Y., Ohde H., Inoue R., Oguchi Y. Clinical application of the multifocal VEPs. Curr Eye Res. 2001;22:54–63. DOI: 10.1076/ceyr.22.1.54.6982

29. Klistorner A., Fraser C., Garrick R., Graham S., Arvind H. Correlation between full-field and multifocal VEPs in optic neuritis. Doc Ophthalmol. 2008;116:19–27. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-007-9072-y

30. Zueva M.V., Tsapenko I.V., Kolosov O.S., Vershinin D.V., Korolenkova V.A., Pronin A.D. Assessment of the Amplitude-Frequency Characteristics of the Retina with Its Stimulation by Flicker and Chess Pattern-Reversed Incentives and their Use to Obtain New Formalized Signs of Retinal Pathologies. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res. 2019;19(5):14575–14583 DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2019.19.003358