Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prospective observational study assessing macular function in acute chorioretinopathy, suggesting mfERG as a reliable evaluation method.
Purpose: To characterize the electroretinographic response of the macula by multifocal electroretinography (mfERG) in acute central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). Materials and Methods: Prospective, observational study. 50 eyes with the first episode of acute CSC (<1 month duration) underwent complete ophthalmologic examination, measurement of best-corrected Snellen Visual Acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), fundus fluorescein angiography, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). First-order kernel mfERG responses recorded according to ISCEV guidelines were grouped into five concentric rings centered on the fovea for the analysis. P1 amplitudes (nv/deg 2 ) and implicit times (ITs, millisec) in each ring were compared with 71 age- and sex-matched controls. Results: Mean logMAR BCVA was 0.48 ± 0.29 while mean CS was 1.15 ± 0.4. Mean P1 amplitude was significantly decreased as compared to controls in rings 1 ( P < 0.0001) and 2 ( P < 0.0001). Mean P1 IT was significantly prolonged as compared to controls in rings 1 ( P = 0.022) and 2 ( P < 0.0001). LogMAR BCVA was significantly and negatively correlated with P1 IT in ring 1 ( r = −0.43, P = 0.002) while CS was significantly and positively correlated with P1 amplitude in ring 1 ( r = 0.341, P = 0.01). P1 IT ( r = −0.340, P = 0.013) in the central ring of mfERG had a significant negative correlation with macular thickness in the corresponding foveal ring of SD-OCT. Conclusion: MfERG response abnormalities in rings 1 and 2 in eyes with acute CSC reflect localized retinal dysfunction. Correlation of the central ring in mfERG with BCVA and CS reinforces that the mfERG can be an acceptable method of objectively assessing the macular function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: