Optical Coherence Tomography in Patients With the Subretinal Implant Retina Implant Alpha IMS

Human Eye Optics within a Non-Euclidian Geometrical Approach and Some Implications in Vision Prosthetics Design

An analogy with our previously published theory on the ionospheric auroral gyroscope provides a new perspective in human eye optics. Based on cone cells’ real distribution, we model the human eye macula as a pseudospherical surface. This allows the rigorous description of the photoreceptor cell densities in the parafoveal zones modeled further by an optimized paving method. The hexagonal photoreceptors’ distribution has been optimally projected on the elliptical pseudosphere, thus designing a prosthetic array counting almost 7000 pixel points. Thanks to the high morphological similarities to a normal human retina, the visual prosthesis performance in camera-free systems might be significantly improved.

Changes in microchip position after implantation of a subretinal vision prosthesis in humans

PURPOSE

Retinal prosthetic devices have been developed to partially restore very low vision in legally blind patients with end-stage hereditary retinal dystrophies. Subretinal implants, unlike epiretinal implants, are not fixated by a tack. The aim of this study was to assess and analyse possible changes over time in the subretinal position of the RETINA IMPLANT Alpha IMS and Alpha AMS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01024803).

METHODS

Imaging studies were performed on fundus photographs using GIMP (Version 2.8.14). Postoperative photographs of the implanted eye were scaled and aligned. Landmarks were chosen and distances between landmarks were measured to then calculate the displacement of the microchip using a transformation matrix for rotational and translational movements. Analyses were performed using MATLAB 8.6 (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA).

RESULTS

Of the 27 datasets with the Alpha IMS device, 12 (44%) remained stable without displacement of the microchip relative to the optic disc and the major blood vessels, whereas in 15 (56%), displacement occurred. The mean ± SD displacement in those 15 eyes was 0.66 ± 0.35 mm (range, 0.24-1.67 mm). Of the eight datasets with the Alpha AMS device, 1 (13%) remained stable without displacement of the microchip relative to the optic disc and the major blood vessels, whereas in 7 (87%), displacement occurred. The mean ± SD displacement in those seven eyes was 0.66 ± 0.26 mm (range, 0.32-0.97 mm). Calculated from all eyes (including those in which no displacement occurred), the mean displacement was 0.36 mm in the IMS cohort, and 0.58 mm in the AMS cohort, however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that the position of the subretinal implant changes in the majority of the cases after implantation. While the overall mean displacement of the chip was not significantly different in either of the cohorts, the maximum displacement was smaller in the Alpha AMS cohort.