4.6 Article

Ten-Year Follow-up of a Blind Patient Chronically Implanted with Epiretinal Prosthesis Argus I

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 122, 期 12, 页码 2545-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.08.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Prevent Blindness, Inc, New York, New York
  2. CAPES Foundation - Brazil [BEX 2326-11-6]
  3. CNPq (the National Council of Research - Brazil) Brasflia, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The Argus I implant is the first-generation epiretinal prosthesis approved for an investigational clinical trial by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Herein we report testing results obtained from a 10-year follow-up to study the physiologic effects of the bioelectronic visual implant after prolonged chronic electrical stimulation. Design: Case report. Participant: One man, 55 years of age when enrolled in the study, underwent surgical implantation of the Argus I in June 2004, followed by periodic tests from July 2004 through June 2014, spanning a total of 10 years. Methods: The decade-long follow-up consisted of implant system performance tests, subject visual function evaluation, and implante-retina interface analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Changes in electrode impedance and perceptual threshold over the time course; subject's performance on visual function task, orientation, and mobility tests; and optical coherence tomography data, fundus imaging, and fluorescein angiography results for the assessment of subject's implante-retina physical interface. Results: Electrically elicited phosphenes were present 10 years after implantation of an epiretinal stimulator. The test subject not only was able to perceive phosphenes, but also could perform visual tasks at rates well above chance. Conclusions: This decade-long follow-up report provides further support for the use of retinal prostheses as a long-lasting treatment for some types of blindness. Ophthalmology 2015; 122:2545-2552 (C) 2015 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据