A wide-field suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis is stable and well tolerated following chronic implantation
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: The safety of chronic implantation of a retinal prosthesis in the suprachoroidal space has not been established. This study aimed to determine the safety of a wide-field suprachoroidal electrode array following chronic implantation using histopathologic techniques and electroretinography. METHODS: A platinum electrode array in a wide silicone substrate was implanted unilaterally in the suprachoroidal space in adult cats (n = 7). The lead and connector were tunneled out of the orbit and positioned subcutaneously. Postsurgical recovery was assessed using fundus photography and electroretinography (ERG). Following 3 months of passive implantation, the animals were terminated and the eyes assessed for the pathologic response to implantation. RESULTS: The implant was mechanically stable in the suprachoroidal space during the course of the study. The implanted eye showed a transient increase in ERG response amplitude at 2 weeks, which returned to normal by 3 months. Pigmentary changes were observed at the distal end of the implant, near the optic disc. Histopathologic assessment revealed a largely intact retina and a thin fibrous capsule around the suprachoroidal implant cavity. The foreign body response was minimal, with sporadic presence of macrophages and no active inflammation. All implanted eyes were negative for bacterial or fungal infections. A midgrade granuloma and thick fibrous buildup surrounded the extraocular cable. Scleral closure was maintained in six of seven eyes. There were no staphylomas or choroidal incarceration. CONCLUSIONS: A wide-field retinal prosthesis was stable and well tolerated during long-term suprachoroidal implantation in a cat model. The surgical approach was reproducible and overall safe.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The suprachoroidal location reduces the risk of retinal damage compared to the other two approaches since it does not require intravitreal manipulation.
“This location reduces the risk of retinal damage compared to the other two approaches since it does not require intravitreal manipulation [54].”
From Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges (2022) · cites this paper as [54]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 79 · Cited by 63
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hartong DT, Berson EL, Dryja TP. Retinitis pigmentosa. Lancet 2006;368:1795-1809.
- Villalobos, J., Nayagam, D. A. X., Allen, P. J., McKelvie, P., Luu, C. D., Ayton, L. N., Freemantle, A. L., McPhedran, M., Basa, M., McGowan, C. C., Shepherd, R. K. & Williams, C. E. (2013). A Wide-Field Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis Is Stable and Well Tolerated Following Chronic Implantation. INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 54 (5), pp.3751-3762. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-10843. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/43133
- Authors
- Villalobos, J., Nayagam, D. A. X., Allen, P. J., McKelvie, P., Luu, C. D., Ayton, L. N., Freemantle, A. L., McPhedran, M., Basa, M., McGowan, C. C., Shepherd, R. K., & Williams, C. E.
- Affiliations
- Bionics Institute (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Chris E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2013-05-29
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 3751
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2080620649
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 5.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- David and Elaine Potter Foundation
- State Government of Victoria
- 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 › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal and Macular Surgery
- Keywords
- retinal prosthesis, foreign body reaction, granuloma, fibrous capsule, electroretinogram, histopathology, cat model, staphyloma
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cats, Choroid, Electrodes, Implanted, Electroretinography, Foreign-Body Reaction, Fundus Oculi, Postoperative Complications, Time Factors, Tretinoin, Prosthesis Implantation, Models, Animal, 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