To evaluate the relationship between abnormalities detected by the multifocal visual-evoked potential (mfVEP) compared with those detected by static achromatic automated perimetry in patients with compressive optic neuropathy.
Fifteen patients of mean age 50.8 years, with known compressive optic neuropathy from chiasmal lesions, underwent monocular mfVEP and 24-2 SITA-standard Humphrey visual field (HVF; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin CA) testing in each eye. Visual field spatial agreement and extent of involvement were analyzed by assigning a severity score to each quadrant, based on pattern deviation and amplitude deviation probability plots.
HVF mean deviation (MD) was -6.54 +/- 7.43 dB (mean), and the mfVEP mean AccuMap Severity Index (ASI; ObjectiVision Pty. Ltd., Sydney, Australia) score was 81 +/- 74. MD and ASI correlated significantly (r = -0.55, P = 0.024). Although both mfVEP and HVF reported approximately the same proportion of visual fields as abnormal (70%, 21/30, and 87%, 26/30, respectively), 19% (5/26) with abnormal HVF were labeled normal or borderline by mfVEP. The agreement for field quadrants between instruments was 69% (kappa = 0.33). mfVEP severity scores for quadrants and hemifields were higher than scores for HVF in the same eyes. The superotemporal quadrant showed the strongest correlation between techniques (r = 0.73, P = 0.002).
In the first study to compare mfVEP to HVF in patients with compressive optic neuropathy, there was good qualitative and quantitative agreement between tests, though findings were in only modest agreement in some areas. The injury caused by compressive optic neuropathy may be usefully identified by mfVEP. Improved methods of analysis may increase the diagnostic utility of the method.