Literature DB >> 30945025

Electrophysiological evaluation of a chronically implanted electrode for suprachoroidal transretinal stimulation in rabbit eyes.

Kentaro Nishida1, Hirokazu Sakaguchi2, Motohiro Kamei3, Toru Saito4, Takashi Fujikado2, Kohji Nishida2.   

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to determine the electrophysiological efficacy, safety, and electrical stability of a chronically implanted electrode for suprachoroidal transretinal stimulation (STS) in rabbit eyes. A platinum microelectrode was implanted into the scleral pocket of rabbit eyes (n = 5) and followed-up for 6 months. To evaluate the electrophysiological efficacy, electrically evoked potentials (EEPs) were measured every month after implantation. To evaluate safety, fundus examinations, fluorescein angiograms, electroretinograms (ERGs), and visually evoked potentials (VEPs) were measured before and every month after the implantation. At the end of the experiment, histological examination of retinal tissue beneath the site of the electrode was performed. To evaluate electrical stability, the resistance of the circuit was measured every month after implantation. EEPs could be elicited from the STS electrodes at all testing times. The mean threshold current to evoke EEPs was 186.4 ± 47.0 µA at 6 months after implantation. There was no significant change in the threshold over the follow-up period. The resistance of the circuit was significantly increased at 1 months after implantation, with no further increase at 6 months. There was no statistically significant change in the relative amplitudes and implicit times of a- and b-waves of ERGs and VEPs. No intraocular infection, inflammation, or vitreoretinal proliferation was observed in any eye. Histological examination revealed no retinal damage beneath the electrode. We conclude that chronically implanted electrodes for STS appear to be effective, safe, and electrically stable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electrically evoked potentials; Electroretinograms; Resistance; Suprachoroidal transretinal stimulation; Visually evoked potentials

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30945025     DOI: 10.1007/s10047-019-01095-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Artif Organs        ISSN: 1434-7229            Impact factor:   1.731


  21 in total

1.  Artificial vision for the blind by connecting a television camera to the visual cortex.

Authors:  W H Dobelle
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.872

Review 2.  Scleral buckle removal: indications and outcomes.

Authors:  Irena Tsui
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.048

3.  Measurement of evoked potentials after electrical stimulation of the human optic nerve.

Authors:  Marten E Brelén; Valerie Vince; Benoit Gérard; Claude Veraart; Jean Delbeke
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  Human sclera: thickness and surface area.

Authors:  T W Olsen; S Y Aaberg; D H Geroski; H F Edelhauser
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Electrically elicited visual evoked potentials in Argus II retinal implant wearers.

Authors:  H Christiaan Stronks; Michael P Barry; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Diffusion barriers evoked in the rat cortex by reactive astrogliosis.

Authors:  T Roitbak; E Syková
Journal:  Glia       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 7.452

7.  Methods and perceptual thresholds for short-term electrical stimulation of human retina with microelectrode arrays.

Authors:  Joseph F Rizzo; John Wyatt; John Loewenstein; Shawn Kelly; Doug Shire
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Subretinal Visual Implant Alpha IMS--Clinical trial interim report.

Authors:  Katarina Stingl; Karl Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; Dorothea Besch; Caroline K Chee; Charles L Cottriall; Florian Gekeler; Markus Groppe; Timothy L Jackson; Robert E MacLaren; Assen Koitschev; Akos Kusnyerik; James Neffendorf; Janos Nemeth; Mohamed Adheem Naser Naeem; Tobias Peters; James D Ramsden; Helmut Sachs; Andrew Simpson; Mandeep S Singh; Barbara Wilhelm; David Wong; Eberhart Zrenner
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Chronic electrical stimulation with a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: a preclinical safety and efficacy study.

Authors:  David A X Nayagam; Richard A Williams; Penelope J Allen; Mohit N Shivdasani; Chi D Luu; Cesar M Salinas-LaRosa; Sue Finch; Lauren N Ayton; Alexia L Saunders; Michelle McPhedran; Ceara McGowan; Joel Villalobos; James B Fallon; Andrew K Wise; Jonathan Yeoh; Jin Xu; Helen Feng; Rodney Millard; Melanie McWade; Patrick C Thien; Chris E Williams; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A suprachoroidal electrical retinal stimulator design for long-term animal experiments and in vivo assessment of its feasibility and biocompatibility in rabbits.

Authors:  J A Zhou; S J Woo; S I Park; E T Kim; J M Seo; H Chung; S J Kim
Journal:  J Biomed Biotechnol       Date:  2008
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.