Kai Januschowski1,2, Cristina Irigoyen3, J Carlos Pastor4,5,6,7, Girish K Srivastava4,7, Mario R Romano8,9, Heinrich Heimann10, Peter Stalmans11, Karel Van Keer11, Karl Boden12, Peter Szurman12,13, Martin S Spitzer14. 1. Eye Clinic Sulzbach, Knappschaftshopsital Sulzbach/Saar, Sulzbach-Saar, Germanykai.januschowski@kksaar.de. 2. Centre for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germanykai.januschowski@kksaar.de. 3. Ophthalmology Department, Donostia University Hospital, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain. 4. IOBA, Eye Institute, University of Valladolid, Campus Miguel Delibes, Valladolid, Spain. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Clinico Universitario, Valladolid, Spain. 6. Oftared. Red Temática de Investigacion en Oftalmologia del Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Madrid, Spain. 7. Centro en Red de Terapia Celular y Medicina Regenerativa de Castilla y León, Junta de Castilla y Leon, Valladolid, Spain. 8. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Rozzano-Milan, Italy. 9. Eye Center, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Humanitas Clinic Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy. 10. Centre for Ophthalmology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 11. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 12. Eye Clinic Sulzbach, Knappschaftshopsital Sulzbach/Saar, Sulzbach-Saar, Germany. 13. Centre for Ophthalmology, University Eye Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 14. Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
Retinal toxicity/biocompatibility of medical devices in direct contact with the retina is an important subject for clinicians and scientists. As these effects are not very frequent, there is also a relative lack of information for many clinicians. The past has taught us multiple times that there is a significant safety problem associated with severe loss of vision in affected patients. In this review, we want to classify medical products that are used in the back of the eye, describe recent examples of toxicity, critically reflect on the regulations that exist and suggest improvements that can be done to ensure patient safety without hindering innovation. METHODS: Critical review of the recent papers and personal experience of the authors in this issue. Medical devices used in the back of the eye and recent examples of toxicity are described, regulations that exist are critically reflected and improvements suggested that can ensure patient safety without hindering innovation. RESULTS: There is clear evidence of toxicity after intraocular surgery in any category. Some cytotoxic indirect methods have failed in detecting this toxicity. Some ISO rules do not seem appropriate. Postmarketing safety is missing. There is little data on this issue. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a clear regulation of the production, purification and evaluation of the toxic effects of the medical devices supposes the possibility that products are not sufficiently safe to obtain the CE mark.
Retinal toxicity/biocompatibility of medical devices in direct contact with the retina is an important subject for clinicians and scientists. As these effects are not very frequent, there is also a relative lack of information for many clinicians. The past has taught us multiple times that there is a significant safety problem associated with severe loss of vision in affected patients. In this review, we want to classify medical products that are used in the back of the eye, describe recent examples of toxicity, critically reflect on the regulations that exist and suggest improvements that can be done to ensure patient safety without hindering innovation. METHODS: Critical review of the recent papers and personal experience of the authors in this issue. Medical devices used in the back of the eye and recent examples of toxicity are described, regulations that exist are critically reflected and improvements suggested that can ensure patient safety without hindering innovation. RESULTS: There is clear evidence of toxicity after intraocular surgery in any category. Some cytotoxic indirect methods have failed in detecting this toxicity. Some ISO rules do not seem appropriate. Postmarketing safety is missing. There is little data on this issue. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a clear regulation of the production, purification and evaluation of the toxic effects of the medical devices supposes the possibility that products are not sufficiently safe to obtain the CE mark.
Authors: Rosa M Coco-Martin; Cristina Andrés-Iglesias; Girish K Srivastava; Javier Lagos-Rodriguez; Miguel Ruiz-Tevah; Mario R Díaz-Cárdenas; Ivan Fernandez-Bueno; Juan García-Serna; María T García-Gutierrez; Alfredo García-Layana; J Carlos Pastor Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mariantonia Ferrara; Giulia Coco; Tania Sorrentino; Kirti M Jasani; George Moussa; Francesco Morescalchi; Felipe Dhawahir-Scala; Francesco Semeraro; David H W Steel; Vito Romano; Mario R Romano Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Raniero Mendichi; Alberto Giacometti Schieroni; Daniele Piovani; Davide Allegrini; Mariantonia Ferrara; Mario R Romano Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 3.283