Artikel
Stability of a Suprachoroidal Visual Prosthesis
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Lauren N. Ayton
- Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
-
C.D. Luu
- Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
-
P.J. Allen
- Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
-
N.L. Opie
- Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
-
J. Villalobos
- The Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, Australia
-
C.E. Williams
- The Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, Australia
-
R.H. Guymer
- Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
-
Bionic Vision Australia consortium
| Veröffentlicht: | 13. Februar 2014 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background: In 2012, Bionic Vision Australia implanted three patients with end-stage retinitis pigmentosa with a prototype suprachoroidal visual prosthesis implant. The suprachoroidal implant location was chosen, in part, for the hypothesised improved device stability. This paper will detail the initial device stability results during twelve months from implantation.
Methods: The implanted prototype device consisted of a silicone and platinum 24-channel array, which was connected via a helical lead wire to a percutaneous connector behind the ear. Intraocular array position was monitored over a twelve-month period with weekly fundus photography and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Lead wire and percutaneous connector stability were monitored using monthly X-ray and 6-monthly computerized tomography (CT) imaging. Device position was compared to anatomical landmarks to assess stability over time.
Results: From image analysis, both the intraocular array and extraocular connections remained in a stable position over twelve months. There was no damage to the devices and all electrodes remained functional over the 12 month follow up.
Conclusion: The initial twelve-month data show that the suprachoroidal implant location allows excellent device stability. As device efficacy is dependent on a stable electrode-tissue interface, suprachoroidal implantation may be a desirable option for visual prostheses.
