Vigabatrin: Longterm follow-up of electrophysiology and visual field examinations

25Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: To report the results of repeated electrophysiological and visual field examinations in patients with vigabatrin-associated visual field loss (VGB-VFL) and the relationship between these electrophysiological findings, the cumulative dose of vigabatrin and the extent of visual field loss. Methods: Twenty-two eyes of 11 patients with VGB-VFL were studied. All patients underwent surgery for therapy-resistant epilepsy. Repeated electrooculograms (EOGs) and flash electroretinograms (ERGs) were made and the cumulative dose of vigabatrin and the visual field loss were recorded after a period of 37-47 months. Results: The visual field loss was stable in patients who had stopped vigabatrin at the time of the first examination. There was a slight increase in VFL in patients who continued vigabatrin. During the second EOG and ERG, abnormalities in scotopic and photopic a-wave latencies and in scotopic b-wave amplitude were found in more than 50% of patients. Only b-wave latency became normal, while EOG, a-wave latency, a-wave amplitude and b-wave amplitude stayed abnormal. The amount of VFL and the cumulative dose of vigabatrin were statistically correlated with the b-wave amplitude, mainly photopic, found during the first and second examinations. Conclusion: After 4 years, EOG, flash ERG and visual field loss had not improved in patients with VGB-VFL. The statistically significant correlation found during the first examination between the amount of VFL and the cumulative dose of vigabatrin with the (mainly photopic) b-wave amplitude remained constant.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hardus, P., Verduin, W., Berendschot, T., Postma, G., Stilma, J., & van Veelen, C. (2003). Vigabatrin: Longterm follow-up of electrophysiology and visual field examinations. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 81(5), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0420.2003.00085.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free