Maintaining close proximity between the electrode array and the retinal surface is critical in developing a successful retinal implant. With the development of chronic electrode arrays that are stable and flush on the retinal surface, it is likely that the influence of other factors such as electrode size, retinal degeneration, and subject age will become more apparent. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00279500.).
Three test subjects blind from retinitis pigmentosa were implanted with retinal prostheses as part of a FDA-approved clinical trial. The implant consisted of an extraocular unit that contained electronics for wireless data, power, and generation of stimulus current, and an intraocular unit that consisted of 16 platinum stimulating electrodes arranged in a 4 x 4 pattern within a silicone rubber substrate. The array was held to the retina by a small tack. The stimulator was connected to the array by a multiwire cable and was controlled by a computer based external system that allowed precise control over each electrode. Perception thresholds and electrode impedance were obtained on each electrode from the subjects over several months of testing. The electrode distance from the retina was determined from optical coherence tomography imaging of the array and retina. Across all subjects, average thresholds ranged from 24-702 microA (1-ms pulse). The data show that proximity to the retina played a role in determining the threshold and impedance, but only for electrodes that were greater than 0.5 mm from the retina.
These findings suggest that, the FES therapy combined with conventional therapy treatment more effectively improves the walking ability and enhances the motor recovery when compared with conventional therapy alone in stroke survivors.
An epiretinal prosthesis, consisting of an extraocular microelectronic stimulator and an intraocular electrode array, was implanted in one eye of three blind and three sighted dogs. Three dogs (2 blind, 1 normal) were stimulated for 120 days, and two dogs (both normal) for 60 and 103 days respectively for 8-10 h/day at levels of 0.1 mC cm(-2) and 0.05 mC cm(-2), with each stimulus level presented to half of the array. One blind dog was kept as an inactive implant control. During the study period, electroretinograms (ERG) and fundus photographs were recorded. At the end of the study period, the dogs were sacrificed and histological and morphometric evaluation was made of the retina. No inflammatory reaction, neovascularization or hemorrhage was observed during the follow-up examinations. ERGs were unchanged. Stimulus levels used were of sufficient amplitude to elicit cortical evoked potentials. Histological evaluation showed no inflammatory infiltrates or changes in retina morphometry related to electrical stimulation when compared to the unstimulated control eye. Morphometric analysis revealed no consistent differences relating to electrical stimulation. In summary, chronic electrical stimulation of the dog retina at up to 0.1 mC cm(-2) with an epiretinal prosthesis does not appear to adversely affect the retina.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.