A Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: Long-Term Observation of the Electrode–Tissue Interface

Purpose To report the long-term observations of the electrode–tissue interface and perceptual stability in humans after chronic stimulation with a 44-channel suprachoroidal retinal implant. Methods Four subjects (S1–4) with end-stage retinitis pigmentosa received the implant unilaterally (NCT03406416). Electrode impedances, electrode–retina distance (measured using optical coherence tomography imaging), and perceptual thresholds were monitored up to 181 weeks after implantation as the subjects used the prosthesis in the laboratory and in daily life. Stimulation charge density was limited to 32 µC/cm2 per phase. Results Electrode impedances were stable longitudinally. The electrode–retina distances increased after surgery and then stabilized, and were well-described by an asymptotic exponential model. The stabilization of electrode–retina distances was variable between subjects, stabilizing after 45 weeks for S1, 63 weeks for S2, and 24 weeks for S3 (linear regression; Pgradient > 0.05). For S4, a statistically significant increase in electrode–retina distance persisted (P < 0.05), but by the study end point the rate of increase was clinically insignificant (exponential model: 0.33 µm/wk). Perceptual electrical thresholds were stable in one subject, decreased over time in two subjects (linear model; P < 0.05), and increased slightly in one subject but remained within the predefined charge limits (P = 0.02). Conclusions Chronic stimulation with the suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis over 3 years resulted in stable impedances, small individual changes in perceptual electrical thresholds, and no clinically significant increase in electrode–retina distances after a period of settling after surgery. Translational Relevance Chronic stimulation with the 44-channel suprachoroidal retinal implant with a charge density of up to 32 µC/cm2 per phase is suitable for long-term use in humans.

[1]  Samuel A. Titchener,et al.  A Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: Interim Clinical Trial Results , 2021, Translational vision science & technology.

[2]  Samuel A. Titchener,et al.  Oculomotor Responses to Dynamic Stimuli in a 44-Channel Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis , 2020, Translational vision science & technology.

[3]  Gislin Dagnelie,et al.  An update on retinal prostheses , 2019, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[4]  A. Rachitskaya,et al.  Correlation between Argus II array–retina distance and electrical thresholds of stimulation is improved by measuring the entire array , 2019, European journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  Samuel A. Titchener,et al.  A 44 channel suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: inter-observer reliability measuring electrode to retina distance , 2019 .

[6]  J. Pezaris,et al.  Contemporary approaches to visual prostheses , 2019, Military Medical Research.

[7]  Edward Bloch,et al.  Advances in retinal prosthesis systems , 2019, Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology.

[8]  Joel Villalobos,et al.  Safety Studies for a 44-Channel Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: A Chronic Passive Study. , 2018, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[9]  Chris E. Williams,et al.  A Pre-clinical Model for Safe Retinal Stimulation , 2017 .

[10]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  The Appearance of Phosphenes Elicited Using a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis. , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  Chris E. Williams,et al.  First-in-Human Trial of a Novel Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis , 2014, PloS one.

[12]  Hugh J. McDermott,et al.  Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  Peter Seligman,et al.  Impedance changes in chronically implanted and stimulated cochlear implant electrodes , 2014, Cochlear implants international.

[14]  Andrew K. Wise,et al.  Chronic Electrical Stimulation with a Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: A Preclinical Safety and Efficacy Study , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  Nicholas L Opie,et al.  Development of a surgical procedure for implantation of a prototype suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis , 2014, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[16]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  Factors Affecting Perceptual Threshold in Argus II Retinal Prosthesis Subjects. , 2013, Translational vision science & technology.

[17]  Philippe Renaud,et al.  Simulation of epiretinal prostheses - Evaluation of geometrical factors affecting stimulation thresholds , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[18]  Peter Seligman,et al.  Electrical stimulation causes rapid changes in electrode impedance of cell-covered electrodes , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[19]  Arup Roy,et al.  Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in epiretinal prostheses. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[20]  Ethan D Cohen,et al.  Prosthetic interfaces with the visual system: biological issues , 2007, Journal of neural engineering.

[21]  Samip P. Shah,et al.  Electrical properties of retinal–electrode interface , 2007, Journal of neural engineering.

[22]  M. Mcmahon,et al.  Electrode Impedance as a Predictor of Electrode–Retina Proximity and Perceptual Threshold in a Retinal Prosthesis , 2006 .

[23]  J. Weiland,et al.  Perceptual thresholds and electrode impedance in three retinal prosthesis subjects , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[24]  D. Dacey,et al.  Dendritic field size and morphology of midget and parasol ganglion cells of the human retina. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  N Drasdo,et al.  Non-linear projection of the retinal image in a wide-angle schematic eye. , 1974, The British journal of ophthalmology.