BRAIN STIMULATION: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation
Volume 4, Issue 4 , Pages 175-188, October 2011

Noninvasive transorbital alternating current stimulation improves subjective visual functioning and vision-related quality of life in optic neuropathy

  • Carolin Gall

      Affiliations

    • Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Medical Faculty, Institute of Medical Psychology, Magdeburg, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Carolin Gall, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Institute of Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Leipziger Str. 44, Magdeburg 39120, Germany.
  • ,
  • Susann Sgorzaly

      Affiliations

    • Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Medical Faculty, Institute of Medical Psychology, Magdeburg, Germany
  • ,
  • Sein Schmidt

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Berlin, Germany
  • ,
  • Stephan Brandt

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Berlin, Germany
  • ,
  • Anton Fedorov

      Affiliations

    • EBS Technologies GmbH, Kleinmachnow, Germany
  • ,
  • Bernhard A. Sabel

      Affiliations

    • Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Medical Faculty, Institute of Medical Psychology, Magdeburg, Germany

Received 23 December 2010; received in revised form 7 July 2011; accepted 11 July 2011. published online 07 October 2011.

Background

Noninvasive repetitive transorbital alternating current stimulation (rtACS) can improve visual field size in patients with optic nerve damage, but it is not known if this is of subjective relevance. We now assessed patient reported outcomes to determine the association between visual field changes and vision-related quality of life (QoL).

Methods

Patients having visual field impairments long after optic nerve damage (mean lesion age 5.5 years) were randomly assigned to a rtACS (n = 24) or sham stimulation group (n = 18). Visual fields and patient reported outcome measures (vision-related QoL: National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, NEI-VFQ and health-related QoL: Short Form Health Survey, SF-36) were collected before and after a 10-day treatment course with daily sessions of 20 to 40 minutes. The primary outcome measure was the percent change from baseline of detection ability (DA) in defective visual field sectors as defined by computer-based high resolution perimetry (HRP). Secondary outcome parameters included further HRP parameters as well as static and kinetic perimetry results. Changes in QoL measures were correlated with changes in primary and secondary outcome measures in both groups.

Results

DA increase in the defective visual field was significantly larger after rtACS (41.1 ± 78.9%, M ± SD) than after sham stimulation (13.6 ± 26.3%), P < 0.05. While there was a significant increase of DA in the whole tested HRP visual field after rtACS (26.8 ± 76.7%, P < 0.05), DA in sham-stimulation patients remained largely unchanged (2.7 ± 20.2%, ns). Results of secondary outcome measures (static and kinetic perimetry) provided further evidence of rtACS efficacy. Improvements in NEI-VFQ subscale “general vision” were observed in both groups but were larger in the rtACS group (11.3 ± 13.5, Z = −3.21, P < 0.001) than in the sham group (4.2 ± 9.4, Z = −1.73, P < 0.05) with a significant difference between groups (Z = −1.71, P < 0.05). DA change and some NEI-VFQ domains were correlated (r = 0.29, P < 0.05), but no significant correlations were observed between DA and SF-36 results.

Conclusions

rtACS facilitates vision restoration after unilateral, long-term optic nerve lesion as assessed both by objective DA changes and improvements in some NEI-VFQ subscales. Both were positively but low correlated, which suggests that factors other than visual field size also contribute to improved vision-related QoL.

Keywords: quality of life, alternating current stimulation, vision recovery, plasticity, optic neuropathy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Bernhard A. Sabel is consultant and shareholder of EBS Technologies GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany), manufacturer of the AC stimulation device used in this study. Stephan Brandt is consultant and Anton B. Fedorov is an employee of EBS.

 The other authors have no competing interests.

 The study was funded by the Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg and by EBS Technologies GmbH, Kleinmachnow.

PII: S1935-861X(11)00109-4

doi:10.1016/j.brs.2011.07.003

BRAIN STIMULATION: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation
Volume 4, Issue 4 , Pages 175-188, October 2011