Cited by 359Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringRetinal Development and DisordersAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Five-year safety and performance results from the argus II retinal prosthesis system clinical trial.

Open access
da Cruz, Lyndon, Dorn, Jessy D., Humayun, Mark S., Dagnelie, Gislin, Handa, James, Barale, Pierre-Olivier, Sahel, José-Alain, Stanga, Paulo E. +19 more·2016·Ophthalmology

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System (Second Sight Medical Products, Inc, Sylmar, CA) was developed to restore some vision to patients blind as a result of retinitis pigmentosa (RP) or outer retinal degeneration. A clinical trial was initiated in 2006 to study the long-term safety and efficacy of the Argus II System in patients with bare or no light perception resulting from end-stage RP. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial. Within-patient controls included the nonimplanted fellow eye and patients' native residual vision compared with their vision with the Argus II. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty participants in 10 centers in the United States and Europe. METHODS: The worse-seeing eye of blind patients was implanted with the Argus II. Patients wore glasses mounted with a small camera and a video processor that converted images into stimulation patterns sent to the electrode array on the retina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were safety (the number, seriousness, and relatedness of adverse events) and visual function, as measured by 3 computer-based, objective tests. Secondary measures included functional vision performance on objectively scored real-world tasks. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 30 patients remained implanted with functioning Argus II Systems at 5 years after implantation. Only 1 additional serious adverse event was experienced after the 3-year time point. Patients performed significantly better with the Argus II on than off on all visual function tests and functional vision tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year results of the Argus II trial support the long-term safety profile and benefit of the Argus II System for patients blind as a result of RP. The Argus II is the first and only retinal implant to have market approval in the European Economic Area, the United States, and Canada.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.06.049

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At present, retinal prostheses are the most successful approach in the field of visual prostheses.

    “At present, retinal prostheses are the most successful approach in this field, and several retinal devices have already been approved for patients with retinal dystrophies (Da Cruz et al., 2016; Stingl et al., 2017).”
  • Several retinal devices have already been approved for patients with retinal dystrophies.

    “At present, retinal prostheses are the most successful approach in this field, and several retinal devices have already been approved for patients with retinal dystrophies (Da Cruz et al., 2016; Stingl et al., 2017).”
  • Several research groups are focusing on developing artificial vision approaches based on electric stimulation of the retina.

    “several research groups are focusing their efforts on the development of new approaches for artificial vision based on electric stimulation of the retina”
  • A multicentre trial of Argus II in end-stage retinitis pigmentosa showed that the device supports basic visual tasks such as grating acuity, high-contrast object localisation, and motion direction detection.

    “A multicentre clinical trial of Argus II in patients with end-stage retinitis pigmentosa showed that the device enables basic visual tasks, such as grating visual acuity, high contrast object localisation and detection of direction of motion.”

    From Correcting visual loss by genetics and prosthetics (2020) · cites this paper as da Cruz 2016

  • Argus II durability generally exceeded 5 years, and the best reported grating acuity was about 1.8 logMAR (6/379 Snellen).

    “The durability of the device generally exceeded 5 years and the best reported grating visual acuity is around 1.8 logMAR equivalent (6/379 Snellen) [da Cruz 2016; Schaffrath 2019].”

    From Correcting visual loss by genetics and prosthetics (2020) · cites this paper as da Cruz 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
da Cruz, L., Dorn, J. D., Humayun, M. S., Dagnelie, G., Handa, J., Barale, P.-O., Sahel, J.-A., Stanga, P. E., Hafezi, F., Safran, A. B., Salzmann, J., Santos, A., Birch, D., Spencer, R., Cideciyan, A. V., de Juan, E., Duncan, J. L., Eliott, D., Fawzi, A., Olmos de Koo, L. C., Ho, A. C., Brown, G., Haller, J., Regillo, C., Del Priore, L. V., Arditi, A., & Greenberg, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Second Sight Medical Products (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Centre hospitalier national d'ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts (FR)
  • Institut de la Vision (FR)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • Centro de Retina Médica y Quirúrgica (MX)
  • Retina Foundation of the Southwest (US)
  • Texas Retina Associates (United States) (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Wills Eye Hospital (US)
  • Lighthouse Guild (US)
Corresponding author
Dorn, Jessy D.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
123
Issue
10
Pages
2248-2254
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2476154117
Cited by
359
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
23.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Repository of Tecnológico de Monterrey (Tecnológico de Monterrey) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY012893, RC3EY020778)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
Argus II, retinal prosthesis, retinitis pigmentosa, outer retinal degeneration, long-term safety, visual function, functional vision, electrode arrays, blind patients, adverse events
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blindness, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Prosthesis Design, Retina, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Time Factors, Visual Acuity, Treatment Outcome, Persons with Visual Disabilities, Visual Prosthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review