Derrick L Cheng1, Paul B Greenberg2,3, David A Borton4,5. 1. a Alpert Medical School , Brown University , Providence , RI , USA. 2. b Section of Ophthalmology , Providence VA Medical Center , Providence , RI , USA. 3. c Division of Ophthalmology, Alpert Medical School , Brown University , Providence , RI , USA. 4. d School of Engineering , Brown University , Providence , RI , USA. 5. e Brown Institute for Brain Science , Brown University , Providence , RI , USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date, reviews of retinal prostheses have focused primarily on devices undergoing human trials in the Western Hemisphere and fail to capture significant advances in materials and engineering research in countries such as Japan and Korea, as well as projects in early stages of development. To address these gaps, this systematic review examines worldwide advances in retinal prosthetic research, evaluates engineering characteristics and clinical progress of contemporary device initiatives, and identifies potential directions for future research in the field of retinal prosthetics. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEExplore was conducted following the PRISMA Guidelines for Systematic Review. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed papers demonstrating progress in human or animal trials and papers discussing the prosthetic engineering design. For each initiative, a description of the device, its engineering considerations, and recent clinical results were provided. RESULTS: Ten prosthetic initiatives met our inclusion criteria and were organized by stimulation location. Of these initiatives, four have recently completed human trials, three are undergoing multi- or single-center human trials, and three are undergoing preclinical animal testing. Only the Argus II (FDA 2013, CE 2011) has obtained FDA approval for use in the United States; the Alpha-IMS (CE 2013) has achieved the highest visual acuity using a Landolt-C test to date and is the only device presently undergoing a multicenter clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Several distinct approaches to retinal stimulation have been successful in eliciting visual precepts in animals and/or humans. However, many clinical needs are still not met and engineering challenges must be addressed before a retinal prosthesis with the capability to fully and safely restore functional vision can be realized.
PURPOSE: To date, reviews of retinal prostheses have focused primarily on devices undergoing human trials in the Western Hemisphere and fail to capture significant advances in materials and engineering research in countries such as Japan and Korea, as well as projects in early stages of development. To address these gaps, this systematic review examines worldwide advances in retinal prosthetic research, evaluates engineering characteristics and clinical progress of contemporary device initiatives, and identifies potential directions for future research in the field of retinal prosthetics. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEExplore was conducted following the PRISMA Guidelines for Systematic Review. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed papers demonstrating progress in human or animal trials and papers discussing the prosthetic engineering design. For each initiative, a description of the device, its engineering considerations, and recent clinical results were provided. RESULTS: Ten prosthetic initiatives met our inclusion criteria and were organized by stimulation location. Of these initiatives, four have recently completed human trials, three are undergoing multi- or single-center human trials, and three are undergoing preclinical animal testing. Only the Argus II (FDA 2013, CE 2011) has obtained FDA approval for use in the United States; the Alpha-IMS (CE 2013) has achieved the highest visual acuity using a Landolt-C test to date and is the only device presently undergoing a multicenter clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Several distinct approaches to retinal stimulation have been successful in eliciting visual precepts in animals and/or humans. However, many clinical needs are still not met and engineering challenges must be addressed before a retinal prosthesis with the capability to fully and safely restore functional vision can be realized.
Authors: David G Birch; Paul S Bernstein; Alessandro Iannacone; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; John Heckenlively; Karl Csaky; Mary Elizabeth Hartnett; Kevin L Winthrop; Thiran Jayasundera; Dianna K Hughbanks-Wheaton; Judith Warner; Paul Yang; Gary Edd Fish; Michael P Teske; Neal L Sklaver; Laura Erker; Elvira Chegarnov; Travis Smith; Aimee Wahle; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Jennifer McCormack; Robert Lindblad; Steven Bramer; Stephen Rose; Patricia Zilliox; Peter J Francis; Richard G Weleber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Lauren N Ayton; Nick Barnes; Gislin Dagnelie; Takashi Fujikado; Georges Goetz; Ralf Hornig; Bryan W Jones; Mahiul M K Muqit; Daniel L Rathbun; Katarina Stingl; James D Weiland; Matthew A Petoe Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Ana B Garcia-Delgado; Lourdes Valdes-Sanchez; Maria Jose Morillo-Sanchez; Beatriz Ponte-Zuñiga; Francisco J Diaz-Corrales; Berta de la Cerda Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.123