PURPOSE: This study evaluated the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System (Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, CA) in blind subjects with severe outer retinal degeneration. DESIGN: Single-arm, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty subjects were enrolled in the United States and Europe between June 6, 2007, and August 11, 2009. All subjects were followed up for a minimum of 6 months and up to 2.7 years. METHODS: The electronic stimulator and antenna of the implant were sutured onto the sclera using an encircling silicone band. Next, a pars plana vitrectomy was performed, and the electrode array and cable were introduced into the eye via a pars plana sclerotomy. The microelectrode array then was tacked to the epiretinal surface. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary safety end points for the trial were the number, severity, and relation of adverse events. Principal performance end points were assessments of visual function as well as performance on orientation and mobility tasks. RESULTS: Subjects performed statistically better with the system on versus off in the following tasks: object localization (96% of subjects), motion discrimination (57%), and discrimination of oriented gratings (23%). The best recorded visual acuity to date is 20/1260. Subjects' mean performance on orientation and mobility tasks was significantly better when the system was on versus off. Seventy percent of the patients did not have any serious adverse events (SAEs). The most common SAE reported was either conjunctival erosion or dehiscence over the extraocular implant and was treated successfully in all subjects except in one, who required explantation of the device without further complications. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term safety results of Second Sight's retinal prosthesis system are acceptable, and most subjects with profound visual loss perform better on visual tasks with system than without it.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System (Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, CA) in blind subjects with severe outer retinal degeneration. DESIGN: Single-arm, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty subjects were enrolled in the United States and Europe between June 6, 2007, and August 11, 2009. All subjects were followed up for a minimum of 6 months and up to 2.7 years. METHODS: The electronic stimulator and antenna of the implant were sutured onto the sclera using an encircling silicone band. Next, a pars plana vitrectomy was performed, and the electrode array and cable were introduced into the eye via a pars plana sclerotomy. The microelectrode array then was tacked to the epiretinal surface. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary safety end points for the trial were the number, severity, and relation of adverse events. Principal performance end points were assessments of visual function as well as performance on orientation and mobility tasks. RESULTS: Subjects performed statistically better with the system on versus off in the following tasks: object localization (96% of subjects), motion discrimination (57%), and discrimination of oriented gratings (23%). The best recorded visual acuity to date is 20/1260. Subjects' mean performance on orientation and mobility tasks was significantly better when the system was on versus off. Seventy percent of the patients did not have any serious adverse events (SAEs). The most common SAE reported was either conjunctival erosion or dehiscence over the extraocular implant and was treated successfully in all subjects except in one, who required explantation of the device without further complications. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term safety results of Second Sight's retinal prosthesis system are acceptable, and most subjects with profound visual loss perform better on visual tasks with system than without it.
Authors: Mark S Humayun; James D Weiland; Gildo Y Fujii; Robert Greenberg; Richard Williamson; Jim Little; Brian Mech; Valerie Cimmarusti; Gretchen Van Boemel; Gislin Dagnelie; Eugene de Juan Journal: Vision Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Glenn J Jaffe; Daniel Martin; David Callanan; P Andrew Pearson; Brian Levy; Timothy Comstock Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-05-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Alejandro J Roman; Sharon B Schwartz; Tomas S Aleman; Artur V Cideciyan; John D Chico; Elizabeth A M Windsor; Leigh M Gardner; Gui-Shuang Ying; Elaine E Smilko; Maureen G Maguire; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Peter J Kappel; Alexander C Charonis; Gary N Holland; Raja Narayanan; Amol D Kulkarni; Fei Yu; David S Boyer; Robert E Engstrom; Baruch D Kuppermann Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: C Veraart; C Raftopoulos; J T Mortimer; J Delbeke; D Pins; G Michaux; A Vanlierde; S Parrini; M C Wanet-Defalque Journal: Brain Res Date: 1998-11-30 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Dorsa Haji Ghaffari; Kathleen E Finn; V Swetha E Jeganathan; Uday Patel; Varalakshmi Wuyyuru; Arup Roy; James D Weiland Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Wei Chieh Huang; Artur V Cideciyan; Alejandro J Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Rebecca Sheplock; Sharon B Schwartz; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ivan Tochitsky; Aleksandra Polosukhina; Vadim E Degtyar; Nicholas Gallerani; Caleb M Smith; Aaron Friedman; Russell N Van Gelder; Dirk Trauner; Daniela Kaufer; Richard H Kramer Journal: Neuron Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Benjamin M Gaub; Michael H Berry; Amy E Holt; Andreas Reiner; Michael A Kienzler; Natalia Dolgova; Sergei Nikonov; Gustavo D Aguirre; William A Beltran; John G Flannery; Ehud Y Isacoff Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 11.205