Artificial vision is restoring sight by electrical stimulation of the visual system at the level of retina, optic nerve, lateral geniculate body, or occipital cortex. The development of artificial vision began with occipital cortex prosthesis; however, retinal prosthesis has advanced faster in recent years. Currently, multiple efforts are focused on finding the optimal approach for restoring vision through an implantable retinal microelectrode array system. Retinal prostheses function by stimulating the inner retinal neurons that survive retinal degeneration. In these devices, the visual information, gathered by a light detector, is transformed into controlled patterns of electrical pulses, which are in turn delivered to the surviving retinal neurons by an electrode array. Retinal prostheses are classified based on where the stimulating array is implanted (ie, epiretinal, subretinal, suprachoroidal, or episcleral). Recent regulatory approval of 2 retinal prostheses has greatly escalated interest in the potential of these devices to treat blindness secondary to outer retinal degeneration. This review will focus on the technical and operational features and functional outcomes of clinically tested retinal prostheses. We will discuss the major barriers and some of the more promising solutions to improve the outcomes of restoring vision with electrical retinal stimulation.
StevensGAWhiteRAFlaxmanSR; Vision Loss Expert Group. Global prevalence of vision impairment and blindness: magnitude and temporal trends, 1990-2010. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(12):2377–2384.
2.
BourneRRStevensGAWhiteRA; Vision Loss Expert Group. Causes of vision loss worldwide, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(6):e339–e349.
3.
LipinskiDMBarnardARSinghMS. CNTF gene therapy confers lifelong neuroprotection in a mouse model of human retinitis pigmentosa. Mol Ther. 2015;23(8):1308–1319.
4.
NazariHZhangLZhuD. Stem cell based therapies for age-related macular degeneration: the promises and the challenges. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2015;48:1–39.
5.
HumayunMSDornJDda CruzL; Argus II Study Group. Interim results from the international trial of Second Sight’s visual prosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(4):779–88.
6.
RizzoJFIII. Update on retinal prosthetic research: the Boston Retinal Implant Project. J Neuroophthalmol. 2011;31(2):160–168.
SantosAHumayunMSde JuanEJr. Preservation of the inner retina in retinitis pigmentosa: a morphometric analysis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(4):511–515.
9.
StoneJLBarlowWEHumayunMSde JuanEJrMilamAH. Morphometric analysis of macular photoreceptors and ganglion cells in retinas with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(11):1634–1639.
10.
KimSYSaddaSHumayunMSde JuanEJrMeliaBMGreenWR. Morphometric analysis of the macula in eyes with geographic atrophy due to age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2002;22(4):464–470.
11.
KimSYSaddaSPearlmanJ. Morphometric analysis of the macula in eyes with disciform age-related macular degeneration. Retina. 2002;22(4):471–477.
12.
ChaderGJWeilandJHumayunMS. Artificial vision: needs, functioning, and testing of a retinal electronic prosthesis. Prog Brain Res. 2009;175:317–332.
13.
ChuangATMargoCEGreenbergPB. Retinal implants: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(7):852–856.
14.
LuoYHda CruzL. A review and update on the current status of retinal prostheses (bionic eye). Br Med Bull. 2014;109:31–44.
15.
ZrennerE. Fighting blindness with microelectronics. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(210):210ps16.
16.
ChuangATChenAJChanJJMargoCEGreenbergPB. Retinal implants: analysis of the news media perspective. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(1):119–120.
17.
GrüsserOJHagnerM. On the history of deformation phosphenes and the idea of internal light generated in the eye for the purpose of vision. Doc Ophthalmol. 1990;74(1-2):57–85.
18.
ButtonJPutnamT. Visual responses to cortical stimulation in the blind. J Iowa Med Soc. 1962;52:17–21.
19.
BrindleyGSLewinWS. The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. J Physiol. 1968;196(2):479–493.
20.
WeilandJDAndersonDJ. Chronic neural stimulation with thin-film, iridium oxide electrodes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2000;47(7):911–918.
21.
TassickerGE. Preliminary report on a retinal stimulator. Br J Physiol Opt. 1956;13(2):102–105.
22.
ChowAYChowVYPackoKHPollackJSPeymanGASchuchardR. The artificial silicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):460–469.
HumayunMSde JuanEJrDagnelieGGreenbergRJPropstRHPhillipsDH. Visual perception elicited by electrical stimulation of retina in blind humans. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(1):40–46.
25.
HumayunMSde JuanEJrWeilandJD. Pattern electrical stimulation of the human retina. Vision Res. 1999;39(15):2569–2576.
26.
RizzoJFIIIWyattJLoewensteinJKellySShireD. Perceptual efficacy of electrical stimulation of human retina with a microelectrode array during short-term surgical trials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(12):5362–5369.
27.
LorachHGoetzGMandelY. Performance of photovoltaic arrays in-vivo and characteristics of prosthetic vision in animals with retinal degeneration. Vision Res. 2015;111(pt B):142–148.
28.
CohenEAgrawalAConnorsMHansenBCharkhkarHPfeferJ. Optical coherence tomography imaging of retinal damage in real time under a stimulus electrode. J Neural Eng. 2011;8(5):056017.
29.
da CruzLColeyBFDornJ. The Argus II epiretinal prosthesis system allows letter and word reading and long-term function in patients with profound vision loss. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(5):632–636.
30.
StinglKBachMBartz-SchmidtKU. Safety and efficacy of subretinal visual implants in humans: methodological aspects. Clin Exp Optom. 2013;96(1):4–13.
31.
AhujaAKYeohJDornJD. Factors affecting perceptual threshold in Argus II retinal prosthesis subjects. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2013;2(4):1.
32.
HoACHumayunMSDornJD; Argus II Study Group. Long-term results from an epiretinal prosthesis to restore sight to the blind. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(8):1547–1554.
33.
da CruzLDornJDHumayunMS; Argus II Study Group. Five-year safety and performance results from the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System Clinical Trial. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(10):2248–2254.
34.
LuoYHda CruzL. The Argus(®) II retinal prosthesis system. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2016;50:89–107.
35.
LuoYHZhongJJda CruzL. The use of Argus(R) II retinal prosthesis by blind subjects to achieve localisation and prehension of objects in 3-dimensional space. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253(11):1907–1914.
36.
KusnyerikAGreppmaierUWilkeR. Positioning of electronic subretinal implants in blind retinitis pigmentosa patients through multimodal assessment of retinal structures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(7):3748–3755.
37.
ZrennerEBartz-SchmidtKUBenavH. Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words. Proc Biol Sci. 2011;278(1711):1489–1497.
38.
StinglKBartz-SchmidtKUGekelerFKusnyerikASachsHZrennerE. Functional outcome in subretinal electronic implants depends on foveal eccentricity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(12):7658–7665.
SchwahnHNGekelerFKohlerK. Studies on the feasibility of a subretinal visual prosthesis: data from Yucatan micropig and rabbit. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001;239(12):961–967.
41.
KohlerKHartmannJAWertsDZrennerE. Histological studies of retinal degeneration and biocompatibility of subretinal implants [in German]. Ophthalmologe. 2001;98(4):364–368.
42.
HafedZMStinglKBartz-SchmidtKUGekelerFZrennerE. Oculomotor behavior of blind patients seeing with a subretinal visual implant. Vision Res. 2016;118:119–131.
43.
StinglKGekelerFBartz-SchmidtKUKögelAZrennerEGeliskenF. Fluorescein angiographic findings in eyes of patients with a subretinal electronic implant. Curr Eye Res. 2013;38(5):588–596.
44.
HornigRZehnderTVelikay-ParelMLaubeTFeuchtMRichardG.The IMI retinal implant system. In: HumayunMSWeilandJDChaderGGreenbaumE, eds. Artificial Sight. New York, NY: Springer; 2007:111–128.
45.
HornigRLaubeTWalterP. A method and technical equipment for an acute human trial to evaluate retinal implant technology. J Neural Eng. 2005;2(1):S129–S134.
46.
Velikay-ParelMIvastinovicDGeorgiTRichardGHornigR. A test method for quantification of stimulus-induced depression effects on perceptual threshold in epiretinal prosthesis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91(8):e595–e602.
47.
MatthaeiMZeitzOKeserüM. Progress in the development of vision prostheses. Ophthalmologica. 2011;225(4):187–192.
48.
FeuchtMLaubeTBornfeldN. Development of an epiretinal prosthesis for stimulation of the human retina [in German]. Ophthalmologe. 2005;102(7):688–691.
49.
RoesslerGLaubeTBrockmannC. Implantation and explantation of a wireless epiretinal retina implant device: observations during the EPIRET3 prospective clinical trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(6):3003–3008.
50.
MokwaWGoertzMKochCKrischITrieuHKWalterP. Intraocular epiretinal prosthesis to restore vision in blind humans. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:5790–5793.
51.
AytonLNBlameyPJGuymerRH; Bionic Vision Australia Research Consortium. First-in-human trial of a novel suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e115239.
52.
LeungRTNayagamDAWilliamsRA. Safety and efficacy of explanting or replacing suprachoroidal electrode arrays in a feline model. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2015;43(3):247–258.
53.
NayagamDAWilliamsRAAllenPJ. Chronic electrical stimulation with a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: a preclinical safety and efficacy study. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97182.
54.
ShivdasaniMNLuuCDCicioneR. Evaluation of stimulus parameters and electrode geometry for an effective suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. J Neural Eng. 2010;7(3):036008.
55.
ShivdasaniMNSinclairNCDimitrovPN; Bionic Vision Australia Consortium. Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in a suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6467–6481.
56.
SaundersALWilliamsCEHeriotW. Development of a surgical procedure for implantation of a prototype suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;42(7):665–674.
57.
LohmannTKKandaHMorimotoT. Surgical feasibility and biocompatibility of wide-field dual-array suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation prosthesis in middle-sized animals. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(4):661–673.
58.
TerasawaYTashiroHNakanoYOsawaKOzawaM. Safety assessment of semichronic suprachoroidal electrical stimulation to rabbit retina. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:3567–3570.
59.
Al YamanMAl-AtabanyWBystrovADegenaarP. FPGA design for dual-spectrum Visual Scene Preparation in retinal prosthesis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:4691–4694.
60.
FujikadoTKameiMSakaguchiH. Testing of semichronically implanted retinal prosthesis by suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(7):4726–4733.
61.
MorimotoTKameiMNishidaK. Chronic implantation of newly developed suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation prosthesis in dogs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(9):6785–6792.
62.
BenavHBartz-SchmidtKUBeschD. Restoration of useful vision up to letter recognition capabilities using subretinal microphotodiodes. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:5919–5922.
63.
CaspiAZivotofskyAZ. Assessing the utility of visual acuity measures in visual prostheses. Vision Res. 2015;108:77–84.
64.
JungJHAloniDYitzhakyYPeliE. Active confocal imaging for visual prostheses. Vision Res. 2015;111(pt B):182–196.
65.
Kiral-KornekFISavageCOO’Sullivan-GreeneEBurkittANGraydenDB. Embracing the irregular: a patient-specific image processing strategy for visual prostheses. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:3563–3566.
