Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Long-term stimulation by active epiretinal implants in normal and RCD1 dogs.
J Neural Eng 2005; 2(1):S65-73JN

Abstract

An epiretinal prosthesis, consisting of an extraocular microelectronic stimulator and an intraocular electrode array, was implanted in one eye of three blind and three sighted dogs. Three dogs (2 blind, 1 normal) were stimulated for 120 days, and two dogs (both normal) for 60 and 103 days respectively for 8-10 h/day at levels of 0.1 mC cm(-2) and 0.05 mC cm(-2), with each stimulus level presented to half of the array. One blind dog was kept as an inactive implant control. During the study period, electroretinograms (ERG) and fundus photographs were recorded. At the end of the study period, the dogs were sacrificed and histological and morphometric evaluation was made of the retina. No inflammatory reaction, neovascularization or hemorrhage was observed during the follow-up examinations. ERGs were unchanged. Stimulus levels used were of sufficient amplitude to elicit cortical evoked potentials. Histological evaluation showed no inflammatory infiltrates or changes in retina morphometry related to electrical stimulation when compared to the unstimulated control eye. Morphometric analysis revealed no consistent differences relating to electrical stimulation. In summary, chronic electrical stimulation of the dog retina at up to 0.1 mC cm(-2) with an epiretinal prosthesis does not appear to adversely affect the retina.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Doheny Retina Institute, Doheny Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15876657

Citation

Güven, Dilek, et al. "Long-term Stimulation By Active Epiretinal Implants in Normal and RCD1 Dogs." Journal of Neural Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, 2005, pp. S65-73.
Güven D, Weiland JD, Fujii G, et al. Long-term stimulation by active epiretinal implants in normal and RCD1 dogs. J Neural Eng. 2005;2(1):S65-73.
Güven, D., Weiland, J. D., Fujii, G., Mech, B. V., Mahadevappa, M., Greenberg, R., ... Humayun, M. S. (2005). Long-term stimulation by active epiretinal implants in normal and RCD1 dogs. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2(1), pp. S65-73.
Güven D, et al. Long-term Stimulation By Active Epiretinal Implants in Normal and RCD1 Dogs. J Neural Eng. 2005;2(1):S65-73. PubMed PMID: 15876657.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Long-term stimulation by active epiretinal implants in normal and RCD1 dogs. AU - Güven,Dilek, AU - Weiland,James D, AU - Fujii,Gildo, AU - Mech,Brian V, AU - Mahadevappa,Manjunatha, AU - Greenberg,Robert, AU - Roizenblatt,Roberto, AU - Qiu,Guanting, AU - Labree,Laurie, AU - Wang,Xiaopeng, AU - Hinton,David, AU - Humayun,Mark S, Y1 - 2005/02/22/ PY - 2005/5/7/pubmed PY - 2005/7/21/medline PY - 2005/5/7/entrez SP - S65 EP - 73 JF - Journal of neural engineering JO - J Neural Eng VL - 2 IS - 1 N2 - An epiretinal prosthesis, consisting of an extraocular microelectronic stimulator and an intraocular electrode array, was implanted in one eye of three blind and three sighted dogs. Three dogs (2 blind, 1 normal) were stimulated for 120 days, and two dogs (both normal) for 60 and 103 days respectively for 8-10 h/day at levels of 0.1 mC cm(-2) and 0.05 mC cm(-2), with each stimulus level presented to half of the array. One blind dog was kept as an inactive implant control. During the study period, electroretinograms (ERG) and fundus photographs were recorded. At the end of the study period, the dogs were sacrificed and histological and morphometric evaluation was made of the retina. No inflammatory reaction, neovascularization or hemorrhage was observed during the follow-up examinations. ERGs were unchanged. Stimulus levels used were of sufficient amplitude to elicit cortical evoked potentials. Histological evaluation showed no inflammatory infiltrates or changes in retina morphometry related to electrical stimulation when compared to the unstimulated control eye. Morphometric analysis revealed no consistent differences relating to electrical stimulation. In summary, chronic electrical stimulation of the dog retina at up to 0.1 mC cm(-2) with an epiretinal prosthesis does not appear to adversely affect the retina. SN - 1741-2560 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15876657/Long_term_stimulation_by_active_epiretinal_implants_in_normal_and_RCD1_dogs_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/2/1/009 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -