4.6 Article

The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 97, Issue 5, Pages 632-636

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-301525

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [5R01EY012893-10, 07/2000-02/2011 NEI]
  2. Research/Development of Artificial Retinas for the Blind

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 degrees) 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available