The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss
Lyndon da Cruz, Brian F Coley, Jessy Dorn, Francesco Merlini, Eugene Filley, Punita Christopher, Fred K Chen, Varalakshmi Wuyyuru, Jose Sahel, Paulo Stanga, Mark Humayun, Robert J Greenberg, Gislin Dagnelie, Argus II Study Group, Lyndon da Cruz, Brian F Coley, Jessy Dorn, Francesco Merlini, Eugene Filley, Punita Christopher, Fred K Chen, Varalakshmi Wuyyuru, Jose Sahel, Paulo Stanga, Mark Humayun, Robert J Greenberg, Gislin Dagnelie, Argus II Study Group
Abstract
Background: Retinal prosthesis systems (RPS) are a novel treatment for profound vision loss in outer retinal dystrophies. Ideal prostheses would offer stable, long-term retinal stimulation and reproducible spatial resolution in a portable form appropriate for daily life.
Methods: We report a prospective, internally controlled, multicentre trial of the Argus II system. Twenty-eight subjects with light perception vision received a retinal implant. Controlled, closed-group, forced-choice letter identification, and, open-choice two-, three- and four-letter word identification tests were carried out.
Results: The mean±SD percentage correct letter identification for 21 subjects tested were: letters L, T, E, J, F, H, I, U, 72.3±24.6% system on and 17.7±12.9% system off; letters A, Z, Q, V, N, W, O, C, D, M, 55.0±27.4% system on and 11.8%±10.7% system off, and letters K, R, G, X, B, Y, S, P, 51.7±28.9% system on and 15.3±7.4% system off. (p<0.001 for all groups). A subgroup of six subjects was able to consistently read letters of reduced size, the smallest measuring 0.9 cm (1.7°) at 30 cm, and four subjects correctly identify unrehearsed two-, three- and four-letter words. Average implant duration was 19.9 months.
Conclusions: Multiple blind subjects fitted with the Argus II system consistently identified letters and words using the device, indicating reproducible spatial resolution. This, in combination with stable, long-term function, represents significant progress in the evolution of artificial sight.
Figures
References
- Zrenner E. Will retinal implants restore vision? Science 2002;295:1022–5
- Rizzo JF, O'Malley ER, Hessburg PC. The eye and the chip 2008. J Neural Eng 2009;3:030201.
- Weiland JD, Liu W, Humayun MS. Retinal prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2005;7:361–401
- Zrenner E. The subretinal implant: can microphotodiode arrays replace degenerated retinal photoreceptors to restore vision? Ophthalmologica 2002;216(Suppl 1):8–20
- Rizzo JF, III, Wyatt J, Loewenstein J, et al. Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:5362–9
- Yanai D, Weiland JD, Mahadevappa M, et al. Visual performance using a retinal prosthesis in three subjects with retinitis pigmentosa. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:820–7
- Besch D, Sachs H, Szurman P, et al. Extraocular surgery for implantation of an active subretinal visual prosthesis with external connections: feasibility and outcome in seven patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:1361–8
- Roessler G, Laube T, Brockmann C, et al. Implantation and explantation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device: observations during the EPIRET3 prospective clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:3003–8
- Chow AY, Chow VY, Packo KH, et al. The artificialsilicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:460–9
- Humayun MS, Dorn JD, Ahuja AK, et al. Preliminary 6 month results from the argus II epiretinal prosthesis feasibility study. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009;1:4566–8
- Horsager A, Greenberg RJ, Fine I. Spatiotemporal interactions in retinal prosthesis subjects invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1223–33
- Zrenner E, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Benav H, et al. Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words. Proc R Soc B 2011;278:1489–97
- Ahuja AK, Dorn JD, Caspi A, et al. Argus II study group blind subjects implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis are able to improve performance in a spatial-motor task. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:539–43
- Chader GJ, Weiland J, Humayun MS. Artificial vision: needs, functioning, and testing of a retinal electronic prosthesis. Prog Brain Res 2009;175:317–32
- Dagnelie G. Psychophysical evaluation for visual prosthesis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2008;10:339–68
- Geruschat DR, Turano KA, Stahl JW. Traditional measures of mobility performance and retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:525–37
- Szlyk JP, Fishman GA, Alexander KR. Relationship between difficulty in performing daily activities and clinical measures of visual function in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:53–9
- Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:516–52
- Kaiser PK. Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: a comparison of snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (an Aos thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2009;107:311–24
- Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, et al. Visual acuities ‘hand motion’ and ‘counting fingers’ can be quantified with the Freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1236–40
- Bach M, Wilke M, Wilhelm B, et al. Basic quantitative assessment of visual performance in patients with very low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1255–60
- Matthaei M, Zeitz O, Keseru M, et al. Progress in the development of vision prostheses. Ophthalmologica 2011;225:187–92
- Humayun MS, Weiland JD, Fujii GY, et al. Visual perception in a blind subject with a chronic microelectronic retinal prosthesis. Vision Res 2003;43:2573–81
- Greenberg RJ, Velte TJ, Humayun MS, et al. A computational model of electrical stimulation of the retinal ganglion cell. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1999;46:505–14
- Caspi A, Dorn JD, McClure KH, et al. Feasibility study of a retinal prosthesis: spatial vision with a 16-electrode implant. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:398–401
Source: PubMed