Optoelectronic Devices for Vision Restoration
- PDF / 407,255 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 1 Downloads / 236 Views
RETINA (R GOLDHARDT, SECTION EDITOR)
Optoelectronic Devices for Vision Restoration Victor Wang 1 & Ajay E. Kuriyan 2,3
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose of Review The goal is providing an update to the latest research surrounding optoelectronic devices, highlighting key studies and benefits and limitations of each device. Recent Findings The Argus II demonstrated long-term safety after a 5-year follow-up. Due to lack of tack fixation, subretinal implants appear to displace over time. PRIMA’s completed primate trial showed initial safety and potential for improved vision, resulting in ongoing clinical trials; Bionic Vision Australia developed a new 44-electrode suprachoroidal device currently in a clinical trial. Orion (cortical stimulation) is currently undergoing a clinical trial to demonstrate safety. Summary Devices using external camera for images are unaffected by corneal or lens opacities but disconnect eye movements from image perception, while the opposite is true for implants directly detecting light. Visual acuity provided by devices is more complicated than implant electrode density, and new devices aim to target this with innovative approaches. Keywords Optoelectronic devices . Retinal implants . Argus . OptoEpiret . PRIMA . Bionic Vision Australia
Introduction Optoelectronic devices are devices that can transduce electrical-to-optical or optical-to-electrical signals [1]. They have a wide array of applications, but one key application is to restore vision in patients with significant retinal diseases (Summary of devices in Table 1). Once there is permanent damage to retinal structures, there are few treatments [2]. Several different retinal prostheses designed over the last few years have the goal of restoring vision to patients with significant outer retinal diseases lacking treatment, such as retinitis pigmentosa and advanced non-exudative macular degeneration with geographic atrophy [6••, 35]. The majority of This article is part of the Topical Collection on Retina * Ajay E. Kuriyan [email protected] Victor Wang [email protected] 1
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA
2
Retina Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
3
Flaum Eye Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
optoelectronic devices currently require some degree of inner retina function to transmit signals to the optic nerve. One device circumvents the visual pathways and directly stimulates the occipital lobe [7]. This review will discuss the significance of retinal implants studied in clinical trials over the past few years, focusing on most recent updates, and highlight the key findings and differences between them.
Epiretinal Implants Argus II Implant The Argus II is the first commercially available implant technology allowing patients with retinitis pigmentosa to regain some visual function. The Argus II implant received FDA approval in 2013 for reti
Data Loading...
