Abstract： Objective:To investigate the value of pattern reversal visual evoked potential (PRVEP) and sweep pattern visual evoked potential (SPVEP) in evaluating the visual function of patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC).Methods:A retrospective clinical trial. A total of 38 monocular CSC patients were enrolled from March 2016 to December2018 in Heping Hospital Affiliated Changzhi Medical College. There were 34 males and 4 females with the mean age of 40.0±5.2 years. All patients undergo PRVEP detection in both the acute phase (disease course ≤ 3 months) and the clinical cure phase (disease course ≤ 6 months) using the German Roland electrophysiological RETIport system.The stimulation pattern adopted a checkerboard with 1.00° and 0.25° stimulation angles. The P 100 peak amplitude and peak time were observed. SPVEP inspection equipment and methods were the same as PRVEP, and the spatial frequency was 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 22 cpd. The difference between SPVEP vision and subjective vision were compared. The PRVEP peak amplitude, peak time and SPVEP amplitude and phase of the affected eye and the contralateral eye were compared by paired t test; the subjective vision and SPVEP visual acuity of the affected eye and the contralateral eye were compared by Wilcoxon paired rank test; Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed on SPVEP vision. Results:In the acute phase, the peak amplitude of P100 in the affected eye was lower than that in the contralateral eye ( t=30.26, 13.59), and the peak time was prolonged ( t=-19.89, -29.41). The difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01); in clinically cured period, the P100 peak amplitude ( t=1.49, -0.57) and peak time ( t=-1.22, -1.84) of the affected eye and the contralateral eye showed no significant difference ( P>0.05). In the acute phase, the difference in SPVEP amplitude between the affected eye and the contralateral eye with different spatial frequencies was statistically significant ( P<0.01); the phase of the affected eye and the contralateral eye were compared about the spatial frequency 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 cpd, the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01). During the clinical cure period, the spatial frequency of 6, 8, 12, 16 cpd, the SPVEP amplitude of the affected eye and the contralateral eye, the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01); on the spatial frequency of 6, 8, 12 cpd, the phase of SPVEP was compared between the affected eye and the contralateral eye, the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01). During the acute phase and the clinical cure phase, the SPVEP visual acuity of the affected eye was lower than that of the contralateral eye, and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01); during the acute phase and clinical cure phase, the SPVEP visual acuity of the affected eye and the contralateral eye were lower than the subjective vision. The difference was statistically significant (acute phase: Z =-5.38, -3.00; P<0.001, 0.003; clinical cure phase: Z=-5.36,-5.38; P<0.001,<0.001). In the acute phase, the subjective visual acuity of the affected eye was positively correlated with SPVEP visual acuity ( r=0.847, P<0.001). Conclusions:PRVEP and SPVEP are useful for objectively assessing the visual function of the patients with CSC. Especially, the slight and potential visual impairment in CSC can been detected by SPVEP.