Long term positional stability of the Argus II retinal prosthesis epiretinal implant.
Argus II
Argus II retinal prosthesis
Implant movement
Low vision
Retinitis pigmentosa
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2023
16 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
12
05
2022
accepted:
13
12
2022
entrez:
16
2
2023
pubmed:
17
2
2023
medline:
22
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System (Second Sight Medical Products, Sylmar, California) is an epiretinal prosthesis that serves to provide useful vision to people who are affected by retinal degenerative diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP). The purpose of this study was to analyze postoperative movement of the electrode array. Five patients diagnosed with profound retinal dystrophy who have undergone implantation of retinal prosthesis at Stony Brook University Hospital. Fundoscopy was performed at postoperative month 1 (M1), month 3 (M3), month 6 (M6), month 12 (M12), and month 24 (M24) visits. Fundoscopy was extracted and analyzed via NIH ImageJ. Data analysis was completed using IBM SPSS. Various lengths and angles were measured each postoperative month using ImageJ. There was no significant change in distance between the optic disc and the surgical handle (length AB) over the two-year span (F = 0.196, p = 0.705). There was a significant change in distance of length AB over time between patients between M3 and M6 (p = 0.025). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed that there was statistically significant change of the optic disc-tack-surgical handle angle (𝛾) (M1 to M24) (F = 3.527, p = 0.030). There was no significant change in angle 𝜟 (the angle to the horizontal of the image), angle 𝜶 (tack-optic disc-surgical handle), and angle 𝜷 (optic-disc-surgical handle-tack). Our results demonstrate that there may be postoperative movement of the retinal prosthesis over time, as a statistically significant downward rotation is reported over the 2 years span. It is important, moving forward, to further study this movement and to take into consideration such movement when designing retinal implants. It is important to note that this study is limited by the small sample size, and therefore, the conclusions drawn are limited.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System (Second Sight Medical Products, Sylmar, California) is an epiretinal prosthesis that serves to provide useful vision to people who are affected by retinal degenerative diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP). The purpose of this study was to analyze postoperative movement of the electrode array.
METHODS
METHODS
Five patients diagnosed with profound retinal dystrophy who have undergone implantation of retinal prosthesis at Stony Brook University Hospital. Fundoscopy was performed at postoperative month 1 (M1), month 3 (M3), month 6 (M6), month 12 (M12), and month 24 (M24) visits. Fundoscopy was extracted and analyzed via NIH ImageJ. Data analysis was completed using IBM SPSS. Various lengths and angles were measured each postoperative month using ImageJ.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no significant change in distance between the optic disc and the surgical handle (length AB) over the two-year span (F = 0.196, p = 0.705). There was a significant change in distance of length AB over time between patients between M3 and M6 (p = 0.025). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed that there was statistically significant change of the optic disc-tack-surgical handle angle (𝛾) (M1 to M24) (F = 3.527, p = 0.030). There was no significant change in angle 𝜟 (the angle to the horizontal of the image), angle 𝜶 (tack-optic disc-surgical handle), and angle 𝜷 (optic-disc-surgical handle-tack).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate that there may be postoperative movement of the retinal prosthesis over time, as a statistically significant downward rotation is reported over the 2 years span. It is important, moving forward, to further study this movement and to take into consideration such movement when designing retinal implants. It is important to note that this study is limited by the small sample size, and therefore, the conclusions drawn are limited.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36797684
doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02736-w
pii: 10.1186/s12886-022-02736-w
pmc: PMC9933348
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
70Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 1985 Mar 15;99(3):272-4
pubmed: 3976803
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016 Nov 1;47(11):999-1003
pubmed: 27842194
Ophthalmology. 2016 Oct;123(10):2248-54
pubmed: 27453256
BMC Ophthalmol. 2020 Sep 17;20(1):366
pubmed: 32943044
Ophthalmology. 2015 Dec;122(12):2545-52.e1
pubmed: 26386850
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2013 Apr;2(4):1
pubmed: 24049718
PLoS Biol. 2016 Oct 25;14(10):e1002569
pubmed: 27780207
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
Front Neurosci. 2020 Dec 18;14:618019
pubmed: 33390897
Am J Ophthalmol. 2018 Sep;193:87-99
pubmed: 29940167
Clin Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun 13;12:1089-1097
pubmed: 29942114
Ophthalmol Retina. 2018 Apr;2(4):276-287
pubmed: 31047236
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2016 Jan;50:89-107
pubmed: 26404104
Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Nov 24;9:2213-6
pubmed: 26648688
Am J Ophthalmol. 1983 Feb;95(2):260-1
pubmed: 6824058
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Feb;131(2):183-9
pubmed: 23544203
Exp Eye Res. 2016 Sep;150:149-65
pubmed: 27020758
Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 24;9(1):9199
pubmed: 31235711