Argus II retinal prosthesis system: a review of patient selection criteria, surgical considerations, and post-operative outcomes
Open accessAbstract
Abstract: Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) is a group of heterogeneous inherited retinal degenerative disorders characterized by progressive rod and cone dysfunction and ensuing photoreceptor loss. Many patients suffer from legal blindness by their 40s or 50s. Artificial vision is considered once patients have lost all vision to the point of bare light perception or no light perception. The Argus II retinal prosthesis system is one such artificial vision device approved for patients with RP. This review focuses on the factors important for patient selection. Careful pre-operative screening, counseling, and management of patient expectations are critical for the successful implantation and visual rehabilitation of patients with the Argus II device. Keywords: retinal prosthesis, vision rehabilitation, artificial vision, patient selection, retinitis pigmentosa, retinal degeneration, low vision
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?
Selection for retinal prostheses is based on retinal imaging to verify structural integrity and corneal stimulation with lens electrodes to verify retinal excitability.
“Among other criteria, the selection for retinal prostheses is based on retinal imaging to verify structural integrity [217] and corneal stimulation with lens electrodes to verify the retinal excitability [217][218][219].”
From Advances in visual prostheses: engineering and biological challenges (2022) · cites this paper as [217]
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 31 · Cited by 71
- Authors
- Finn, A., Grewal, D., & Vajzovic, L.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Grewal, Dilraj
- Venue
- Clinical ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- Volume 12
- Pages
- 1089-1097
- ISSN
- 1177-5467 (ISSN-L)
- 1177-5483
- PMC
- PMC6005308
- OpenAlex
- W2808485090
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical ophthalmology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- 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 › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Keywords
- Argus II retinal prosthesis, retinitis pigmentosa, patient selection, retinal degeneration, artificial vision, visual rehabilitation, low vision, patient counseling, postoperative outcomes, legal blindness
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
