Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38966426›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2024

Chronic electrical stimulation with a peripheral suprachoroidal retinal implant: a preclinical safety study of neuroprotective stimulation.

Carla J Abbott, Penelope J Allen, Chris E Williams, Richard A Williams, Stephanie B Epp, Owen Burns, Ross Thomas, Mark Harrison, Patrick C Thien, Alexia Saunders and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Carla J Abbott *Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Penelope J Allen *Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Chris E WilliamsBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Richard A WilliamsDepartment of Clinical Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Stephanie B EppBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Owen BurnsBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ross ThomasBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Mark HarrisonBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Patrick C ThienBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alexia SaundersBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ceara McGowanBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Caitlin SloanBionics Institute, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Chi D Luu *Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David A X Nayagam *Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Extraocular electrical stimulation is known to provide neuroprotection for retinal cells in retinal and optic nerve diseases. Currently, the treatment approach requires patients to set up extraocular electrodes and stimulate potentially weekly due to the lack of an implantable stimulation device. Hence, a minimally-invasive implant was developed to provide chronic electrical stimulation to the retina, potentially improving patient compliance for long-term use. The aim of the present study was to determine the surgical and stimulation safety of this novel device designed for neuroprotective stimulation. Methods: Eight normally sighted adult feline subjects were monocularly implanted in the suprachoroidal space in the peripheral retina for 9-39 weeks. Charge balanced, biphasic, current pulses (100 μA, 500 µs pulse width and 50 pulses/s) were delivered continuously to platinum electrodes for 3-34 weeks. Electrode impedances were measured hourly. Retinal structure and function were assessed at 1-, 2-, 4-, 6- and 8-month using electroretinography, optical coherence tomography and fundus photography. Retina and fibrotic thickness were measured from histological sections. Randomized, blinded histopathological assessments of stimulated and non-stimulated retina were performed. Results: All subjects tolerated the surgical and stimulation procedure with no evidence of discomfort or unexpected adverse outcomes. The device position was stable after a post-surgery settling period. Median electrode impedance remained within a consistent range (5-10 kΩ) over time. There was no change in retinal thickness or function relative to baseline and fellow eyes. Fibrotic capsule thickness was equivalent between stimulated and non-stimulated tissue and helps to hold the device in place. There was no scarring, insertion trauma, necrosis, retinal damage or fibroblastic response in any retinal samples from implanted eyes, whilst 19% had a minimal histiocytic response, 19% had minimal to mild acute inflammation and 28% had minimal to mild chronic inflammation. Conclusion: Chronic suprathreshold electrical stimulation of the retina using a minimally invasive device evoked a mild tissue response and no adverse clinical findings. Peripheral suprachoroidal electrical stimulation with an implanted device could potentially be an alternative approach to transcorneal electrical stimulation for delivering neuroprotective stimulation.

Indexed as

electrical stimulationelectroretinographyneuroprotectionretinal histopathologyretinal implantsurgical feasibility

Identifiers

PMID38966426
PMCPMC11222648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.