April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Preliminary Results of the Bionic Vision Australia Suprachoroidal Visual Prosthesis Pilot Trial
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Lauren N Ayton
    Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Peter John Blamey
    Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Department of Medical Bionics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
  • Nicholas C Sinclair
    Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Mohit Naresh Shivdasani
    Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Department of Medical Bionics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
  • Matthew A Petoe
    Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Chris McCarthy
    NICTA, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  • Nick Barnes
    NICTA, Canberra, ACT, Australia
  • Penelope J Allen
    Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Chi D Luu
    Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Robyn H Guymer
    Centre for Eye Research Australia, The University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Lauren Ayton, None; Peter Blamey, None; Nicholas Sinclair, None; Mohit Shivdasani, None; Matthew Petoe, None; Chris McCarthy, None; Nick Barnes, None; Penelope Allen, None; Chi Luu, None; Robyn Guymer, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 1813. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lauren N Ayton, Peter John Blamey, Nicholas C Sinclair, Mohit Naresh Shivdasani, Matthew A Petoe, Chris McCarthy, Nick Barnes, Penelope J Allen, Chi D Luu, Robyn H Guymer, ; Preliminary Results of the Bionic Vision Australia Suprachoroidal Visual Prosthesis Pilot Trial. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):1813.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Visual prostheses have been shown to be efficacious in the restoration of basic visual percepts to patients with profound vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa (RP). Previous implants have been located in either the epiretinal, subretinal or intra-scleral spaces of the eye. Bionic Vision Australia has conducted a pilot clinical trial of a novel suprachoroidal implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stability, safety and basic efficacy of the device.

Methods: Three subjects with end-stage retinitis pigmentosa (bare light perception) were implanted with a prototype silicone and platinum suprachoroidal array containing 20 stimulating electrodes, which could be directly stimulated via a percutaneous connector. Intraocular array position was monitored over an 18-month period with weekly fundus photography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans. Lead wire and percutaneous connector stability were monitored using monthly X-ray and biannual computerized tomography (CT) imaging. Device efficacy was assessed using psychophysical methods, and assessment of performance in basic visual function tests such as the Basic Assessment of Light and Motion (BaLM), Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test (BRVT), tumbling E and Landolt C tests.

Results: From image analysis, both the intraocular array and extraocular connections remained in a stable position with respect to anatomical landmarks in the retinal plane. There was no damage to the devices, and the only device-related serious adverse events related to superficial skin infection around the percutaneous connector, which settled with topical or systemic antibiotics and no intraocular sequelae. All electrodes remained connected during the 18-month period. All three subjects perceived phosphene percepts, although there were significant differences in optimal stimulation parameters between them. All patients performed better with the device on than off for the laboratory based visual function tests, including achieving scores of between 72% and 100% on the light localisation subtest of the BaLM when the device was on.

Conclusions: The suprachoroidal implant location is safe and provides excellent device stability. Visual function test performance was improved with device on vs. device off. As device efficacy and longevity is dependent on a stable electrode-tissue interface, suprachoroidal implantation appears a promising option for visual prostheses.

Keywords: 696 retinal degenerations: hereditary • 467 clinical laboratory testing • 550 imaging/image analysis: clinical  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×