J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2021 Apr;62(4):524-530. 10.3341/jkos.2021.62.4.524.

Clinical Efficacy of Portable Electroretinograms

• Kim MJ
• Choi KS

• KMID: 2515585
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2021.62.4.524

Abstract

Purpose
To compare electroretinogram (ERG) waveforms acquired using a portable flash/flicker ERG with skin electrodes (RETeval^TM; LKC Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD, USA), a portable flash/flicker ERG with ERG-jet contact lens electrodes (Fabrinal SA, La Chaux-De-Fonds, Swiss), and a conventional full-field (Ganzfeld) ERG.
Methods
The left eyes of 30 volunteers with no general or ocular history were measured with a portable RETeval ERG, a portable ERG-jet system, and a conventional full-field ERG. Amplitudes and implicit times were compared among the measurements obtained using the three systems.
Results
The RETeval ERG generally showed a lower amplitude than that obtained using a conventional full-field ERG (all, p < 0.001). Amplitude readings from the ERG-jet showed no differences with those acquired using the conventional full-field ERG (all p > 0.1).
Conclusions
Given the differences in the readings from those obtained using a conventional full-field ERG, data from the portable ERG-RETeval type should be analyzed with caution. Notably, the portable ERG-jet showed no differences in its readings compared to those obtained using a conventional full-field ERG.

Keyword

Electrode; Electroretinogram; Portable electroretinogram; RETeval