1987
DOI: 10.1016/0013-4694(87)90082-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A contact lens photostimulator for surgical monitoring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For cranial surgery such as for removal of tumors and other lesions of the anterior pathways, Harding et al observed that "transient abolition of the VEP seen under many circumstances did not correlate with the outcome of surgery, but absence of a previously normal VEP for greater than 4 min during surgical manipulation within the orbit correlated with postoperative vision impairment." [ 46,54 ] However, few if any seem to have adopted this warning criteria and perhaps for good reason. It is been reported that complete absence of F-VEPs is consistent with normal visual recovery, and, conversely, preservation of the responses does not exclude the possibility of impaired vision post surgery [ 3,21 ] .…”
Section: Considerations Regarding Type Of Light Stimulationmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…For cranial surgery such as for removal of tumors and other lesions of the anterior pathways, Harding et al observed that "transient abolition of the VEP seen under many circumstances did not correlate with the outcome of surgery, but absence of a previously normal VEP for greater than 4 min during surgical manipulation within the orbit correlated with postoperative vision impairment." [ 46,54 ] However, few if any seem to have adopted this warning criteria and perhaps for good reason. It is been reported that complete absence of F-VEPs is consistent with normal visual recovery, and, conversely, preservation of the responses does not exclude the possibility of impaired vision post surgery [ 3,21 ] .…”
Section: Considerations Regarding Type Of Light Stimulationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Though some claim the resulting responses were more robust than those later obtained with LED stimulation (especially through dilated eyes) [ 46 ] , use of contact lens for IOM has lost favor due to the invasive nature of the technique, (e.g., lid sutures to keep the corneal lens recording/stimulating device in place) and the potential risk of corneal abrasions and ulcerations with their use. The American Electroencephalographic Society (AEEGS) Guidelines for IOM, recommend such hard lens stimulators be kept on the eyes for a maximum of 45 min (limiting their practical use for a majority of surgical procedures) and that users need to carefully examine the safety data from the stimulator's developer before employing such lenses in the OR [ 47 ] .…”
Section: Techniques For Eliciting Erg and Vep Responses For Iommentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…LEDs are typically mounted onto goggles or eye patches for stimulus delivery through closed eye lids. Contact lens type stimulators [7] have raised concern about corneal lesions [2]. High-intensity stimuli have brought some improvement [12]; direct electrical stimulation of the optic nerve is another promising suggestion [1].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…B. die Kraniotomie selbst eine Latenzverzögerung, deren Ursache unklar ist. Harding et al (1987) konnten mit in Kontaktlinsen eingebauten Photostimulatoren bessere Ergebnisse erzielen. Sie fanden bei Eingriffen in der Orbita, dass ein länger als 4 min dauernder Verlust der VEP während des Eingriffs in allen Fällen mit einer postoperativen Visusverschlechterung korrelierte (Harding et al 1990).…”
Section: Intraoperatives Monitoring Mit Dem Vepunclassified