J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2010 Sep;51(9):1217-1223. 10.3341/jkos.2010.51.9.1217.

Comparison of Electroretinogram Waveforms Acquired Using Monopolar ERG-Jet Electrode and Bipolar Burian-Allen Electrode

• Park J
• Lee H
• Park SJ
• Kim YH

• KMID: 2122288
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2010.51.9.1217

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare electroretinogram (ERG) waveforms acquired using an ERG-jet electrode and a Burian-Allen electrode.
METHODS
ERGs were recorded with an ERG-jet electrode and a Burian-Allen electrode from both eyes of 29 volunteers. Three consecutive recordings were obtained with both electrodes from the left eye of another 6 volunteers. Peak-to-trough amplitudes and peak implicit times were compared between both eyes, and between the 2 types of electrodes. Interpersonal and intrapersonal variation were also compared.
RESULTS
The differences in amplitude and implicit time between the right and left eyes were not influenced by the type of electrode. The amplitude of the ERG acquired using the Burian-Allen electrode, however, showed significant differences between both eyes, contrary to the amplitude acquired using the ERG-jet electrode. ERG recordings obtained using the ERG-jet electrode generally showed higher amplitude, shorter implicit time, and less interpersonal and intrapersonal variation than ERG recordings obtained using the Burian-Allen electrode.
CONCLUSIONS
In this application, the ERG-jet ERG electrode appeared to be superior to the Burian-Allen electrode in terms of both usefulness and consistency.

Keyword

Burian-Allen electrode; Electroretinogram; ERG-Jet electrode

MeSH Terms

Electrodes
Eye

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Burian-Allen electrode (A) and ERG-jet electrode (B).

• 

  Figure 2 Representative waveform of maximum combined response acquired from same eye of same person using Burian-Allen electrode(left) and ERG-jet electrode(right). The amplitudes of a and b wave acquired using ERG-jet electrode are higher.

Reference

1. Marmor MF, Holder GE, Seeliger MW, et al. Standard for clinical electroretinography (2004 update). Doc Ophthalmol. 2004. 108:107–114.

2. Choi SH, Ohn YH, Shin H. Normal value of standard electroretinography and change with age and sex. Results using Burian-Allen electrode and comparison with results using ERG-jet electrode. J Korean Ophthalmol. 1999. 40:129–140.

3. Gjötterberg M. Electrodes for electroretinography. A comparison of four different types. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986. 104:569–570.

4. Mentzer AE, Eifler DM, Montiani-Ferreira F, et al. Influence of recording electrode type and reference electrode position on the canine electroretinogram. Documenta Ophthalmologica. 2005. 111:95–106.

5. Bui BV, Weisinger HS, Sinclair AJ, Vingrys AJ. Comparison of guinea pig electroretinograms measured with bipolar corneal and unipolar intravitreal electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol. 1998. 95:15–34.

6. Hennessy MP, Vaegan . Amplitude scaling relationships of Burian-Allen, gold foil and Dawson, Trick and Litzkow electrodes. Doc Ophthalmol. 1995. 89:235–248.

7. Esakowitz L, Kriss A, Shawkat F. A comparison of flash electroretinograms recorded from Burian Allen, JET, C-glide, gold foil, DTL and skin electrodes. Eye. 1993. 7:169–171.

8. Bradshaw K, Hansen R, Fulton A. Comparison of ERGs recorded with skin and corneal-contact electrodes in normal children and adults. Doc Ophthalmol. 2004. 109:43–55.

9. Prager TC, Saad N, Schweitzer FC, et al. Electrode comparison in pattern electroretinography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992. 33:390–394.

10. Lee YI, Ohn YH, Shin HH. Normal Values of Standard Electroretinography and Change with Age and Sex. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996. 37:1813–1821.

11. Berson EL. Hart Wiliam M, editor. Electrical Phenomena in the Retina. Adler's Physiology of the Eye. 1992. 9th ed. Missouri: Mosby Year Book;–655. Chapter 21.

12. Cringle SJ, Alder VA, Brown MJ, Yu DY. Effect of sclera recording location on ERG amplitude. Current Eye Research. 1986. 5:959–965.

13. Arden GB, Hogg CR, Holder GE. Gold foil electrodes: a two-center study of electrode reliability. Doc Ophthalmol. 1994. 86:275–284.

14. Wong VA, Graham SL. Effect of repeat use and coating defects of gold foil electrodes on electroretinogram recording. Vision Res. 1995. 35:2795–2799.