Summary
Fourteen patients with definite but inactive multiple sclerosis (MS) and 17 normal controls were examined with the automated perimeter octopus. Most of the patients had subclinical visual field defects, typically consisting of patchy, shallow scotomata located mostly in an area of between 15° and 30° eccentricity. In 8 patients, more than 15% of the tested visual field of at least one eye was abnormal. The severity and extent of the defects was unrelated to a history of optic neuritis. When visually evoked potentials (VEPs) of these subjects were examined using a reversing pattern, no correlation was found in the MS patients between prolonged VEP latencies and the location, depth or extent of visual field defects. Since subclinical visual field defects may be found in MS patients with normal VEP latencies, automated perimetry can be helpful in diagnosing some cases.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Asselman P, Chadwick DW, Marsden CD (1975) Visual evoked responses in the diagnosis and management of patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. Brain 98:261–282
Automatic perimeter octopus: Operation instructions and description. Issue 4. Interzeag, Schlieren (Switzerland), 1979
Bébié H, Fankhauser F, Jenni A, Haeberlin H The new software package. Proceedings of the First International Meeting on the Automatic Perimeter Octopus, April 1979, Interzeag, Schlieren (Switzerland), pp 155–178
Burde RM, Pamela F, Gallin BA (1975) Visual parameters associated with recovered retrobulbar optic neuritis. Am J Ophthalmol 79:1034–1037
Ellenberger C (1974) Modern perimetry in neuro-ophthalmic diagnosis. Arch Neurol 30:193–201
Ellenberger C, Ziegler SB (1977) Visual evoked potentials and quantitative perimetry in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1:561–564
Fankhauser F (1979) Problems related to the design of automatic perimeters. Doc Ophthalmol 47:89–138
Fankhauser F, Bébié H (1979) Threshold fluctuations, interpolations and spatial resolution in perimetry. Doc Ophthalmol 19:295–309
Feinsod M, Hoyt WF (1975) Subclinical optic neuropathy in multiple sclerosis. How early VER components reflect axon loss and conduction defects in optic pathways. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 38:1109–1114
Flammer J, Nagel G, Glowazki A, Moser HR, Fankhauser F (1981) Detection and definition of scotomata of the central visual field by computer methods. Doc Ophthalmol 26:33–41
Frisén L, Hoyt WF (1974) Insidious atrophy of retinal nerve fibers in multiple sclerosis. Fundoscopic identification on patients with and without visual complaints. Arch Ophthalmol 92:91–97
Halliday AM, McDonald WI, Mushin J (1973) Visual evoked response in diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Br Med J 4:661–664
Halliday AM, McDonald WI (1977) Pathophysiology of demyelinating disease. Br Med Bull 33:21–27
Harter R (1970) Evoked cortical responses to checkerboard patterns: Effect of check-size as a function of retinal eccentricity. Vision Res 10:1365–1376
Hennerici M, Wenzel D, Freund H-J (1977) The comparison of small-size rectangle and checkerboard stimulation for the evaluation of delayed visual evoked responses in patients suspected of multiple sclerosis. Brain 100:119–136
Lehmann D, Mir Z (1976) Methodik und Auswertung visuell evozierter EEG-Potentiale bei Verdacht auf Multiple Sklerose. J Neurol 213:97–103
Lowitzsch K, Kuhnt U, Sakmann C, Maurer K, Hopf HC, Schott D, Thäter K (1976) Visual pattern evoked responses and blink reflexes in assessment of MS diagnosis. J Neurol 213:17–32
Matthews WR, Small DG (1979) Serial recording of visual and somatosensory evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 40:11–21
Matthews WB, Small DG, Small M, Pountney E (1977) Pattern reversal evoked visual potential in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 40:1009–1014
McAlpine D, Lumsden CE, Acheson ED (1972) Multiple sclerosis—A reappraisal. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
Meienberg O, Kutak L, Smolenski C, Ludin HP (1979) Pattern reversal evoked cortical responses in normals. A study of different methods of stimulation and potential reproducibility. J Neurol 222:81–93
Patterson VH, Heron JR (1980) Visual field abnormalities in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 43:205–209
Regan D, Milner BA, Heron JR (1976) Delayed visual perception and delayed visual evoked potentials in the spinal form of multiple sclerosis and in retrobulbar neuritis. Brain 99:43–66
Shahrokhi F, Chiappa KH, Young RR (1978) Pattern shift visual evoked responses. Two-hundred patients with optic neuritis and/or multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 35:65–71
Sokol S (1976) Visually evoked potentials: Theory, techniques and clinical applications. Surv Ophthalmol 21:18–44
Visual Field Atlas. Octopus system (1979) 2nd edn. Interzeag, Schlieren (Switzerland)
Wutz W, Bartl G, Hiti H, Rodler H (1980) Verlaufsbeobachtungen der Neuritis retrobulbaris — Vergleichende psychophysische und elektroophthalmologische Befunde. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 177:689–695
Zeese JA (1977) Pattern visual evoked responses in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 34:314–316
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported in part by Geigy Jubilaeumsstiftung, Basel
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meienberg, O., Flammer, J. & Ludin, HP. Subclinical visual field defects in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 227, 125–133 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00313566
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00313566