Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess changes in retinal structure and thickness after subretinal implantation of the Retina Implant Alpha IMS (Retina Implant AG, Reutlingen, Germany). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) imaging was performed to assess the structure and thickness of the retina anterior to the microphotodiode array preoperatively, within 6 weeks and 6 months ± 1 month after implantation. Thickness measurements were performed using the distance tool of the built-in software. Three thickness measurements were performed in each of the four quadrants of the retina on the microchip within 6 weeks and 6 months ± 1 month after implantation. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation change in retinal thickness from within 6 weeks to 6 months ± 1 month after implantation in all four quadrants combined was 24 μm ± 68 μm. None of the tested variables (location, time, or their interaction) had a statistically significant effect on the mean retinal thickness ( P = .961, P = .131, and P = .182, respectively; n = 19). CONCLUSION: The authors report on qualitative and quantitative findings in retinal structure in 27 patients after subretinal implantation of the Retina Implant Alpha IMS using OCT technology. No significant changes of retinal thickness could be observed in a period of 6 months after surgery. With more patients receiving subretinal implants and with advanced OCT technology, the data set will be extended to study possible changes in retinal structure in finer detail. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina . 2017;48:993–999.]

A subretinal visual implant (Alpha IMS, Retina Implant AG, Reutlingen, Germany) was implanted in 29 blind participants with outer retinal degeneration in an international multicenter clinical trial. Primary efficacy endpoints of the study protocol were a significant improvement of activities of daily living and mobility to be assessed by activities of daily living tasks, recognition tasks, mobility, or a combination thereof. Secondary efficacy endpoints were a significant improvement of visual acuity/light perception and/or object recognition (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01024803).During up to 12months observation time twenty-one participants (72%) reached the primary endpoints, of which thirteen participants (45%) reported restoration of visual function which they use in daily life. Additionally, detection, localization, and identification of objects were significantly better with the implant power switched on in the first 3months.Twenty-five participants (86%) reached the secondary endpoints. Measurable grating acuity was up to 3.3 cycles per degree, visual acuities using standardized Landolt C-rings were 20/2000, 20/2000, 20/606 and 20/546. Maximal correct motion perception ranged from 3 to 35 degrees per second. These results show that subretinal implants can restore very-low-vision or low vision in blind (light perception or less) patients with end-stage hereditary retinal degenerations.

Purpose Retinal prosthetic devices have been developed to partially restore very low vision in legally blind patients with end-stage hereditary retinal dystrophies. Subretinal implants, unlike epiretinal implants, are not fixated by a tack. The aim of this study was to assess and analyse possible changes over time in the subretinal position of the RETINA IMPLANT Alpha IMS and Alpha AMS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01024803). Methods Imaging studies were performed on fundus photographs using GIMP (Version 2.8.14). Postoperative photographs of the implanted eye were scaled and aligned. Landmarks were chosen and distances between landmarks were measured to then calculate the displacement of the microchip using a transformation matrix for rotational and translational movements. Analyses were performed using MATLAB 8.6 (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA). Results Of the 27 datasets with the Alpha IMS device, 12 (44%) remained stable without displacement of the microchip relative to the optic disc and the major blood vessels, whereas in 15 (56%), displacement occurred. The mean ± SD displacement in those 15 eyes was 0.66 ± 0.35 mm (range, 0.24-1.67 mm). Of the eight datasets with the Alpha AMS device, 1 (13%) remained stable without displacement of the microchip relative to the optic disc and the major blood vessels, whereas in 7 (87%), displacement occurred. The mean ± SD displacement in those seven eyes was 0.66 ± 0.26 mm (range, 0.32-0.97 mm). Calculated from all eyes (including those in which no displacement occurred), the mean displacement was 0.36 mm in the IMS cohort, and 0.58 mm in the AMS cohort, however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.17). Conclusions We have shown that the position of the subretinal implant changes in the majority of the cases after implantation. While the overall mean displacement of the chip was not significantly different in either of the cohorts, the maximum displacement was smaller in the Alpha AMS cohort.

Purpose An active microelectronic subretinal implant, developed to replace the photoreceptive function in hereditary degenerations of the outer retina, has been applied in a pilot and clinical study in patients with end-stage retinal degeneration. Methods The study population comprised 20 blind patients, all of whom lost vision as result of a hereditary retinal disease. An active visual implant was placed surgically within the subretinal space of each patient: subfoveal placement in eight patients (group 1) and parafoveal placement in 12 (group 2). Standardized low-vision tests, including light perception, light localization, movement detection, grating acuity, and visual acuity by Landolt C-rings, were used under masked, randomized implant-OFF and implant-ON conditions. For the chip-mediated vision functional results of both subject groups were compared. Results Three of 20 patients were excluded from analysis because of surgical or technical implant issues. Among patients with nonfoveal placement of the implant, 80% could perceive light, 10% recognized location, and 10% correctly distinguished stripe patterns up to a resolution of 0.33 cycles/degree. No nonfoveal placement patient passed the motion or Landolt C-ring tests. When the implant was placed subfoveally, 100% of patients could perceive light and determine light localization, 75% could resolve motion up to 35°/s, 88% correctly distinguished stripe patterns up to a resolution of 3.3 cycles/degree, and 38% passed a Landolt C-ring test with a decimal visual acuity of up to 20/546 (logMAR 1.43). Conclusions Subfoveal placement of active subretinal visual implants allows superior measurable outcomes compared to para- or nonfoveal placement locations. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01024803, NCT00515814.).

This study aims at substituting the essential functions of photoreceptors in patients who are blind owing to untreatable forms of hereditary retinal degenerations. A microelectronic neuroprosthetic device, powered via transdermal inductive transmission, carrying 1500 independent microphotodiode-amplifier-electrode elements on a 9 mm 2 chip, was subretinally implanted in nine blind patients. Light perception (8/9), light localization (7/9), motion detection (5/9, angular speed up to 35 deg s −1 ), grating acuity measurement (6/9, up to 3.3 cycles per degree) and visual acuity measurement with Landolt C-rings (2/9) up to Snellen visual acuity of 20/546 (corresponding to decimal 0.037 or corresponding to 1.43 logMAR (minimum angle of resolution)) were restored via the subretinal implant. Additionally, the identification, localization and discrimination of objects improved significantly ( n = 8; p < 0.05 for each subtest) in repeated tests over a nine-month period. Three subjects were able to read letters spontaneously and one subject was able to read letters after training in an alternative-force choice test. Five subjects reported implant-mediated visual perceptions in daily life within a field of 15° of visual angle. Control tests were performed each time with the implant's power source switched off. These data show that subretinal implants can restore visual functions that are useful for daily life.

Background Replacing the function of visual pathway neurons by electronic implants is a novel approach presently explored by various groups in basic research and clinical trials. The novelty raises unexplored methodological aspects of clinical trial design that may require adaptation and validation. Methods We present procedures of efficacy and safety testing for subretinal visual implants in humans, as developed during our pilot trial 2005 to 2009 and multi-centre clinical trial since 2010. Results Planning such a trial requires appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria. For subretinal electronic visual implants, patients with photoreceptor degeneration are the target patient group, whereas presence of additional diseases affecting clear optic media or the visual pathway must be excluded. Because sham surgery is not possible, a masked study design with implant power ON versus OFF is necessary. Prior to the efficacy testing by psychophysical tests, the implant's technical characteristics have to be controlled via electroretinography (ERG). Moreover the testing methods require adaptation to the particular technology. We recommend standardised tasks first to determine the light perception thresholds, light localisation and movement detection, followed by grating acuity and vision acuity test via Landolt C rings. A laboratory setup for assessing essential activities of daily living is presented. Subjective visual experiences with the implant in a natural environment, as well as questionnaires and psychological counselling are further important aspects. Conclusions A clinical trial protocol for artificial vision in humans, which leads a patient from blindness to the state of very low vision is a challenge and cannot be defined completely prior to the study. Available tests of visual function may not be sufficiently suited for efficacy testing of artificial vision devices. A protocol based on experience with subretinal visual implants in 22 patients is presented that has been found adequate to monitor safety and efficacy.

Our group has developed a subretinal microphotodiode array for restoration of vision. In a clinical pilot study the array has been implanted in 11 patients suffering from photoreceptor degenerations. Here we present promising results from some of those patients where the retinal tissue above the chip was functional and the implant fulfilled its expected function. A spatial resolution of approximately 0.3 cycles/degree could be achieved with fine stripe patterns. In one subject where the implant had been placed directly under the macular region of the retina a visual acuity of 20/1000 could be measured. Artificially restored visual acuity of this quality has not been reported previously. Finally, we present images illustrating an approximation of how the visual perceptions might have appeared to the subjects, based on a mathematical model and patient reports.

PURPOSE. To optimize methods for positioning subretinal visual implants, customizing their cable length, guiding them to the predetermined retinal position, and evaluating their performance. METHODS. Ten eyes of 10 patients (6 male, 4 female, mean age 46.4 years) were investigated before implantation of a subretinal visual implant. The structural characteristics of the retina as well as the ocular dimensions were determined. Topographic images of the prospective implantation site were subdivided into grids of squares. Each square received a weighted score for suitability. The sum of the scores was calculated, and the region with the highest score was chosen for the implant. In each case, the implant’s power supply cable length was calculated by means of magnetic resonance imaging. The planned and achieved positions before and after implantation were compared. RESULTS. The mean light sensitivity ratio between the area actually covered by the chip and that of the planned position was 90.8% with an SD of 11.4%. In two cases with almost perfect positioning, the computed ratio was 100%. Measurements showed that to achieve a 95% sensitivity rate the difference between the planned and achieved chip position must be less than 1.7 mm. Preoperative calculations of the intraocular cable length proved accurate in all cases. CONCLUSIONS. Preoperative evaluation of retinal structures and eye morphology is useful for guiding a retinal implant to the designated area. It is a meaningful tool for planning and performing retinal chip implantation, and it optimizes personalized implantation. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00515814, NCT01024803.) (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:3748–3755) DOI:10.1167/iovs.11-9409