Retinal implants: a systematic review

Retinal implants present an innovative way of restoring sight in degenerative retinal diseases. Previous reviews of research progress were written by groups developing their own devices. This systematic review objectively compares selected models by examining publications describing five representative retinal prostheses: Argus II, Boston Retinal Implant Project, Epi-Ret 3, Intelligent Medical Implants (IMI) and Alpha-IMS (Retina Implant AG). Publications were analysed using three criteria for interim success: clinical availability, vision restoration potential and long-term biocompatibility. Clinical availability: Argus II is the only device with FDA approval. Argus II and Alpha-IMS have both received the European CE Marking. All others are in clinical trials, except the Boston Retinal Implant, which is in animal studies. Vision restoration: resolution theoretically correlates with electrode number. Among devices with external cameras, the Boston Retinal Implant leads with 100 electrodes, followed by Argus II with 60 electrodes and visual acuity of 20/1262. Instead of an external camera, Alpha-IMS uses a photodiode system dependent on natural eye movements and can deliver visual acuity up to 20/546. Long-term compatibility: IMI offers iterative learning; Epi-Ret 3 is a fully intraocular device; Alpha-IMS uses intraocular photosensitive elements. Merging the results of these three criteria, Alpha-IMS is the most likely to achieve long-term success decades later, beyond current clinical availability.

[1]  Hamish Meffin,et al.  Retinal prosthesis safety: alterations in microglia morphology due to thermal damage and retinal implant contact. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  Alfred Stett,et al.  Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  Youdou Zheng,et al.  Fabrication of lateral electrodes on semiconductor nanowires through structurally matched insulation for functional optoelectronics , 2013, Nanotechnology.

[4]  B. Sellhaus,et al.  Implantation and explantation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device: observations during the EPIRET3 prospective clinical trial. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[5]  Joseph F. Rizzo,et al.  A Hermetic Wireless Subretinal Neurostimulator for Vision Prostheses , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[6]  J. Brandt,et al.  Outcomes of Fornix-based Versus Limbus-based Conjunctival Incisions for Glaucoma Drainage Device Implant , 2012, Journal of glaucoma.

[7]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  Interim results from the international trial of Second Sight's visual prosthesis. , 2012, Ophthalmology.

[8]  Angelika Braun,et al.  Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  B. Wilhelm,et al.  Spatial resolution and perception of patterns mediated by a subretinal 16-electrode array in patients blinded by hereditary retinal dystrophies. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  U. Klose,et al.  Positioning of electronic subretinal implants in blind retinitis pigmentosa patients through multimodal assessment of retinal structures. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  Ming-Hui Sun,et al.  ENDOPHTHALMITIS CAUSED BY PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA IN TAIWAN , 2011, Retina.

[12]  R. Hornig,et al.  Long Term Tolerability of the First Wireless Implant for Electrical Epiretinal Stimulation , 2009 .

[13]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss , 2013, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[14]  Jessy D. Dorn,et al.  The Detection of Motion by Blind Subjects With the Epiretinal 60-Electrode (Argus II) Retinal Prosthesis. , 2013, JAMA ophthalmology.

[15]  W. Mokwa,et al.  Implantation and explantation of an active epiretinal visual prosthesis: 2-year follow-up data from the EPIRET3 prospective clinical trial , 2012, Eye.

[16]  Gislin Dagnelie,et al.  Use of the Argus II retinal prosthesis to improve visual guidance of fine hand movements. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  A. Y. Chow,et al.  The artificial silicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. , 2004, Archives of ophthalmology.

[18]  J. Rizzo.  Update on Retinal Prosthetic Research: The Boston Retinal Implant Project , 2011, Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society.

[19]  Alice K. Cho,et al.  Retinal prostheses: current clinical results and future needs. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[20]  H. Kishima,et al.  Testing of semichronically implanted retinal prosthesis by suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  Lars Wagenfeld,et al.  Progress in the Development of Vision Prostheses , 2011, Ophthalmologica.

[22]  Thomas Laube,et al.  Acute electrical stimulation of the human retina with an epiretinal electrode array , 2012, Acta ophthalmologica.

[23]  B. Wilhelm,et al.  Restoration of useful vision up to letter recognition capabilities using subretinal microphotodiodes , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[24]  R. Hornig,et al.  Visual Perception After Long-Term Implantation of a Retinal Implant , 2008 .

[25]  Eberhart Zrenner,et al.  Fighting Blindness with Microelectronics , 2013, Science Translational Medicine.

[26]  Takashi Fujikado,et al.  Chronic implantation of newly developed suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation prosthesis in dogs. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[27]  T. Wachtler,et al.  Stimulation with a wireless intraocular epiretinal implant elicits visual percepts in blind humans. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.