Repeated transchoroidal implantation and explantation of compound subretinal prostheses: An exploratory study in rabbits

Gekeler, Florian; Kobuch, Karin; Blatsios, Georgios; Zrenner, Eberhart; Shinoda, Kei

doi:10.1007/s10384-010-0851-8

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison to the epiretinal approach, the use of a subretinal prosthesis does not require any additional fixation tool, as the stimulator remains in stable position after insertion into the subretinal space [20,21]. However, the EPIRET3 approach allows a complete intraocular implantation with wireless energy and signal supply from outside, while the subretinal prostheses require a transchoroidal and transscleral cable connection to the energy source outside the eyeball, which may reveal a certain risk potential in this area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Angiographic findings following tack fixation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device in blind RP patients

Roessler

Laube

Brockmann

et al. 2011

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The FA findings confirm our previous results on the safety of the EPIRET3 system, which was tolerated in all patients but revealed a certain risk profile in regard to the stimulator fixation. While there was no evidence for newly occurred CME or CNV during the follow-up visits, nevertheless gliosis or even PVR reaction at the tack's fixation site suggests the need to develop alternative fixation procedures of epiretinal stimulators.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Angiographic findings following tack fixation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device in blind RP patients

Roessler

Laube

Brockmann

et al. 2011

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several subretinal prosthesis studies confine their electrophysiology exams to same day testing immediately postoperatively; however, it may be advantageous to record electrophysiology beyond this time point 23,25,27–29. Long surgical procedures introduce tremendous physiologic trauma to the retina, including light bleaching from the surgical microscope and endoillumination during vitrectomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Rabbit Eye Model for Testing Subretinal Prostheses

Xiao

Huffman

et al. 2019

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subretinal prostheses are a novel technology for restoring useful vision in patients with retinitis pigmentosa or age-related macular degeneration. We characterize the surgical implantation technique and functional time window of an acute rabbit eye model for testing of human subretinal prostheses. Methods: Retinal prostheses were implanted subretinally in 26 rabbits using a twostep technique. Fundus imaging, fluorescein fundus angiography, and optical coherence topography (OCT) were conducted postoperatively from days 1 to 21 to monitor prosthesis positioning and retinal anatomic changes. Results: Successful implantation and excellent retina apposition were achieved in 84.6% of the rabbits. OCTs showed the overlying retina at full thickness for the first 2 days after implantation. Histology confirmed intact inner layers of the overlying retina until day 3. Progressive atrophy of the overlying retina was revealed by repeated OCTs; approximately 40% of the retina thickness remained on postoperative days 5 and 6. Conclusions: The two-step implantation technique works well for the rabbit eye model with human prostheses. Rabbit retina may be used for acute electrophysiologic testing of a retinal prosthesis, but is unsuitable for chronic studies due to the merangiotic retina and its limited time window of validity. Translational Relevance: The improved efficacy in prosthesis surgery using this technique will circumvent the challenges in animal models that provide human-like features critical for the transition into human clinical trials.

show abstract

“…Massoud L Khraiche 1,2,4 , Sharif El Emam 3 , Abraham Akinin 1,4 , Gert Cauwenberghs 1,4 , William Freeman 3 and Gabriel A. Silva 1,2,3,4 , 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS Osaka, Japan, 3 -7 July, 2013…”

Section: Visual Evoked Potential Characterization Of Rabbit Animal Momentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual evoked potential characterization of rabbit animal model for retinal prosthesis research

Khraiche¹,

El-Emam²,

Akinin³

et al. 2013

2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual evoked potentials (VEP) are used to confirm the function of prosthetic devices designed to stimulate retinas with damaged photoreceptors in vivo. In this work, we focus on methods and experimental consideration for recording visual evoked potential in rabbit models and assesses the use for retinal prosthesis research. We compare both invasive and noninvasive methods for recording VEPs, the response of the rabbit retina to various light wavelengths and intensities, focal vs. full field stimulation, and the effect of light bleaching on the retinal response.

show abstract

Repeated transchoroidal implantation and explantation of compound subretinal prostheses: An exploratory study in rabbits

Abstract: Repeated transchoroidal surgery can be safely performed for implantation, explantation, and reimplantation of subretinal devices in rabbits. With modifications, we believe the technique can be applied in human surgery.

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Angiographic findings following tack fixation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device in blind RP patients

Angiographic findings following tack fixation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device in blind RP patients

Acute Rabbit Eye Model for Testing Subretinal Prostheses

Visual evoked potential characterization of rabbit animal model for retinal prosthesis research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About