gms | German Medical Science

25th Annual Meeting of the German Retina Society

German Retina Society

01.06. - 02.06.2012, Münster

Electrical stimulation as a treatment option for dry ARMD: preliminary results with the TheraMac device

Meeting Abstract

  • Gerasimos Anastassiou - Augenklinik, Evangelische Kliniken Gelsenkirchen
  • A.L. Schneegans - Augenklinik, Evangelische Kliniken Gelsenkirchen
  • M. Iliadou - Augenklinik, Evangelische Kliniken Gelsenkirchen
  • M. Selbach - Augenklinik, Evangelische Kliniken Gelsenkirchen
  • S. Kremmer - Augenklinik, Evangelische Kliniken Gelsenkirchen

German Retina Society. 25th Annual Conference of the German Retina Society. Münster, 01.-02.06.2012. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2012. Doc12rg16

doi: 10.3205/12rg16, urn:nbn:de:0183-12rg169

This is the translated version of the article.
The original version can be found at:

Published: May 30, 2012

© 2012 Anastassiou et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.



Background: based on the results of many investigations electrical stimulation represents at least a theoretical option for the treatment of retinal diseases. Several devices are now – at least online – available for the treatment of dry ARMD. However, to date no verifiable data on the efficacy (see also Statement of the RG January 2012) exists. This work examines the effectiveness of one of these devices.

Methods: 16 patients currently (recruitment still open) with dry AMD and visual acuity between 0.3–0.6 are treated in a prospective placebo-controlled study with the TheraMac device. The treatment is performed twice a day for five consecutive days. EDTRS visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, microperimetry (sensitivity and fixation stability), SD-OCT and VFQ-25 questionnaire are evaluated before treatment, on day 5, 4 weeks after and 6 months later.

Results: In the treatment group (n=12) a significant improvement in EDTRS visual acuity was found after 5 days (+4.3 letters, p=0.003), after 4 weeks (+5.5 letters, p=0.002), and after 6 months (+ 5.1 letters, n=10, p=0.05). A significant improvement of the contrast sensitivity was found after 5 days (p=0.006) and after 4 weeks (p=0.004), while the values deteriorated after 6 months and showed no significant difference from the baseline. In the control group (n=4, open recruitment) had neither the EDTRS vision nor the contrast seeing a difference after 5 days.

Conclusions: The results of the treatment group are encouraging and justify the evaluation of electrical stimulation in a larger collective. The upcoming results of the control group could reinforce that first impression, or diminish.