Optic Nerve Diseases, Optic Nerve Injuries, Optic Neuropathies
Conditions
Keywords
optic neuropathy, visual field, electric stimulation, alternating current, perimetry
Brief summary
Aim is to validate that non-invasive brain stimulation can increase cortical excitability in the visual system. The investigators assess if transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) can improve visual field size in patients with optic nerve damage. Hypothesis: tACS would improve visual functions within the defective visual field (primary outcome measure).
Detailed description
In addition, the correlation between the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) or other plasticity markers are correlated to the improvement of the visual field after stimulation.
Interventions
DEVICEtACS
Transorbital alternating current stimulation (tACS) is applied with a multi-channel device with paraorbital montage of 4 stimulation electrodes generating weak current pulses in predetermined firing bursts of 8 to 14 pulses. The amplitude of each current pulse was below 1000 microA. Current intensity was individually adjusted according to how well patients perceived phosphenes, i.e. any sensation of flickering light in response to the rtACS stimulation.
DEVICESham stimulation
tACS is applied with the same device with equal electrodes set-up procedures but only one of four channels actually delivers current. The current intensity of this channel is individually adjusted (preselected on the side of lesioned eye) according with patient able to clearly perceive single phosphenes or any skin irritation phenomena (like weak sense of needles or vibration) whenever a single pulse is applied. The amplitude of pulses is always below 1000 microA. Current pulses are given as 1 pulse per minute during 25-35 min of session time. Session duration is equal for verum and sham patients. The perception of the single pulses leaves sham patients at the impression that they might receive the verum intervention, but total number of pulses is less than 0,5% of verum tACS.
Sponsors
EBS Technologies GmbH
University of Magdeburg
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* patients with optic nerve lesion * stable visual field defect with residual vision * lesion age at least 6 months * age at least 18 years * no completely blindness, residual vision still existent
Exclusion criteria
* electric or electronic implants, e.g. heart pacemaker * any metal artefacts in head and truncus * epilepsy * auto-immune diseases in acute stage * mental diseases, e.g. schizophrenia etc. * unstable diabetes, diabetes causing diabetic retinopathy * addiction * high blood pressure (max. 160/100 mmHg) * instable or high level of intraocular pressure (i.e. \> 27 mmHg) * retinitis pigmentosa * pathological nystagmus * presence of an un-operated tumor anywhere in the body * pregnant or breast-feeding women * photo sensibility * Fundus hypertonicus * acute conjunctivitis
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Detection accuracy (DA) change in percent over baseline within defective visual field | Baseline - 8 weeks after stimulation; First follow-up 2 days after treatment course; Second follow-up 8 weeks after treatment course | Central visual fields assessed with computer-based high-resolution perimetry (HRP). Based on such plots, areas of the visual field are characterized as intact, partially damaged or absolutely impaired (blind). Detection accuracy (DA) change in percent above baseline within defective visual field sectors is defined as the primary outcome criterion. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Reaction time change in ms | Baseline - 8 weeks after stimulation; First follow-up 2 days after treatment course; Second follow-up 8 weeks after treatment course | Reaction time (RT) in HRP |
| Visual acuity (VA) | Baseline - 8 weeks after stimulation; First follow-up 2 days after treatment course; Second follow-up 8 weeks after treatment course | — |
| DA in static and kinetic conventional perimetry | Baseline - 8 weeks after stimulation; First follow-up 2 days after treatment course; Second follow-up 8 weeks after treatment course | — |
| DA change in percent over baseline regarding the damage region of the tested visual field (computer-based high-resolution perimetry) | Baseline - 8 weeks after stimulation; First follow-up 2 days after treatment course; Second follow-up 8 weeks after treatment course | This parameter includes also intact sectors that are tested with HRP. It is hypothesized that improvements of the primary outcome criterion will outweigh the relative change in intact sectors as measured with HRP. |
| EEG parameters | Baseline - 8 weeks after stimulation; First follow-up 2 days after treatment course; Second follow-up 8 weeks after treatment course | EEG power spectra |
Countries
Germany
Outcome results
None listed