Daniel Palanker1, Yannick Le Mer2, Saddek Mohand-Said3, Mahiul Muqit4, Jose A Sahel5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: palanker@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Fondation Ophtalmologique A. de Rothschild, Paris, France. 3. Clinical Investigation Center, Quinze-Vingts National Eye Hospital, Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France. 4. Vitreoretinal Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Fondation Ophtalmologique A. de Rothschild, Paris, France; Clinical Investigation Center, Quinze-Vingts National Eye Hospital, Paris, France; Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Loss of photoreceptors in atrophic age-related macular degeneration results in severe visual impairment, although some peripheral vision is retained. To restore central vision without compromising the residual peripheral field, we developed a wireless photovoltaic retinal implant (PRIMA; Pixium Vision, Paris, France) in which pixels convert images projected from video glasses using near-infrared light into electric current to stimulate the nearby inner retinal neurons. DESIGN: We carried out a first-in-human clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of the prosthesis in patients with geographic atrophy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03333954). PARTICIPANTS: Five patients with geographic atrophy zone of at least 3 optic disc diameters, no foveal light perception, and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/400 to 20/1000 in the worse-seeing study eye. METHODS: The 2-mm wide, 30-μm thick chip, containing 378 pixels (each 100 μm in diameter), was implanted subretinally in the area of atrophy (absolute scotoma). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anatomic outcomes were assessed with fundus photography and OCT for up to 12 months of follow-up. Prosthetic vision was assessed by mapping light perception, bar orientation, letter recognition, and Landolt C acuity. RESULTS: In all patients, the prosthesis was implanted successfully under the macula, although in 2 patients, it was implanted in unintended locations: within the choroid and off center by 2 mm. All 5 patients could perceive white-yellow prosthetic visual patterns with adjustable brightness in the previous scotomata. The 3 with optimal placement of the implant demonstrated prosthetic acuity of 20/460 to 20/550, and the patient with the off-center implant demonstrated 20/800 acuity. Residual natural acuity did not decrease after implantation in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the PRIMA did not decrease the residual natural acuity, and it restored visual sensitivity in the former scotoma in each of the 5 patients. In 3 patients with the proper placement of the chip, prosthetic visual acuity was only 10% to 30% less than the level expected from the pixel pitch (20/420). Therefore, the use of optical or electronic magnification in the glasses as well as smaller pixels in future implants may improve visual acuity even further.
PURPOSE: Loss of photoreceptors in atrophic age-related macular degeneration results in severe visual impairment, although some peripheral vision is retained. To restore central vision without compromising the residual peripheral field, we developed a wireless photovoltaic retinal implant (PRIMA; Pixium Vision, Paris, France) in which pixels convert images projected from video glasses using near-infrared light into electric current to stimulate the nearby inner retinal neurons. DESIGN: We carried out a first-in-human clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of the prosthesis in patients with geographic atrophy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03333954). PARTICIPANTS: Five patients with geographic atrophy zone of at least 3 optic disc diameters, no foveal light perception, and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/400 to 20/1000 in the worse-seeing study eye. METHODS: The 2-mm wide, 30-μm thick chip, containing 378 pixels (each 100 μm in diameter), was implanted subretinally in the area of atrophy (absolute scotoma). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anatomic outcomes were assessed with fundus photography and OCT for up to 12 months of follow-up. Prosthetic vision was assessed by mapping light perception, bar orientation, letter recognition, and Landolt C acuity. RESULTS: In all patients, the prosthesis was implanted successfully under the macula, although in 2 patients, it was implanted in unintended locations: within the choroid and off center by 2 mm. All 5 patients could perceive white-yellow prosthetic visual patterns with adjustable brightness in the previous scotomata. The 3 with optimal placement of the implant demonstrated prosthetic acuity of 20/460 to 20/550, and the patient with the off-center implant demonstrated 20/800 acuity. Residual natural acuity did not decrease after implantation in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the PRIMA did not decrease the residual natural acuity, and it restored visual sensitivity in the former scotoma in each of the 5 patients. In 3 patients with the proper placement of the chip, prosthetic visual acuity was only 10% to 30% less than the level expected from the pixel pitch (20/420). Therefore, the use of optical or electronic magnification in the glasses as well as smaller pixels in future implants may improve visual acuity even further.
Authors: J D Loudin; D M Simanovskii; K Vijayraghavan; C K Sramek; A F Butterwick; P Huie; G Y McLean; D V Palanker Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Henri Lorach; Georges Goetz; Yossi Mandel; Xin Lei; Ludwig Galambos; Theodore I Kamins; Keith Mathieson; Philip Huie; Roopa Dalal; James S Harris; Daniel Palanker Journal: Vision Res Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Elton Ho; Richard Smith; Georges Goetz; Xin Lei; Ludwig Galambos; Theodore I Kamins; James Harris; Keith Mathieson; Daniel Palanker; Alexander Sher Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Katarina Stingl; Ruth Schippert; Karl U Bartz-Schmidt; Dorothea Besch; Charles L Cottriall; Thomas L Edwards; Florian Gekeler; Udo Greppmaier; Katja Kiel; Assen Koitschev; Laura Kühlewein; Robert E MacLaren; James D Ramsden; Johann Roider; Albrecht Rothermel; Helmut Sachs; Greta S Schröder; Jan Tode; Nicole Troelenberg; Eberhart Zrenner Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.677
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: Javad Paknahad; Pragya Kosta; Jean-Marie C Bouteiller; Mark S Humayun; Gianluca Lazzi Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Saba Moslehi; Conor Rowland; Julian H Smith; William J Watterson; David Miller; Cristopher M Niell; Benjamín J Alemán; Maria-Thereza Perez; Richard P Taylor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jordan A Greco; Nicole L Wagner; Ralph J Jensen; Daniel B Lawrence; Matthew J Ranaghan; Megan N Sandberg; Daniel J Sandberg; Robert R Birge Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Young Jun Yoon; Jae-Ik Lee; Ye Ji Jang; Seungki An; Jae Hun Kim; Shelley I Fried; Maesoon Im Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Tiffany W Huang; Theodore I Kamins; Zhijie Charles Chen; Bing-Yi Wang; Mohajeet Bhuckory; Ludwig Galambos; Elton Ho; Tong Ling; Sean Afshar; Andrew Shin; Valentina Zuckerman; James S Harris; Keith Mathieson; Daniel Palanker Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Ratnesh K Singh; Paige A Winkler; Francois Binette; Simon M Petersen-Jones; Igor O Nasonkin Journal: Stem Cells Dev Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 3.272