Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39328823›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology science

A Second-Generation (44-Channel) Suprachoroidal Retinal Prosthesis: A Single-Arm Clinical Trial of Feasibility.

Matthew A Petoe, Carla J Abbott, Samuel A Titchener, Maria Kolic, William G Kentler, David A X Nayagam, Elizabeth K Baglin, Jessica Kvansakul, Nick Barnes, Janine G Walker and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Neural Vision Restoration in Ophthalmology.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Restoration of Sight with Electronic Retinal Prostheses.Annual review of vision science · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Application of Silicone in Ophthalmology: A Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

16 authors.

Matthew A PetoeBionics Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Carla J AbbottCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Samuel A TitchenerBionics Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Maria KolicCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
William G KentlerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David A X NayagamBionics Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Elizabeth K BaglinCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica KvansakulBionics Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nick BarnesResearch School of Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Janine G WalkerResearch School of Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Lewis KarapanosCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Myra B McGuinnessCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lauren N AytonCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Chi D LuuCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Penelope J AllenCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Bionics Institute and Centre for Eye Research Australia Retinal Prosthesis Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of a second-generation (44-channel) suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis for provision of functional vision in recipients with end-stage retinitis pigmentosa (RP) over 2.7 years. Design: Prospective, single-arm, unmasked interventional clinical trial. Participants: Four participants, with advanced RP and bare-light perception vision. Methods: The 44-channel suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis was implanted in the worse-seeing eye. Device stability, functionality, and adverse events were investigated at approximately 12-week intervals up to 140 weeks (2.7 years) postdevice activation. Main Outcome Measures: Serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, visual response outcomes, functional vision outcomes, and quality-of-life outcomes. Results: All 4 participants (aged 39-66 years, 3 males) were successfully implanted in 2018, and there were no device-related SAEs over the duration of the study. A mild postoperative subretinal hemorrhage was detected in 2 recipients, which cleared spontaneously within 2 weeks. OCT confirmed device stability and position under the macula. Improvements in localization abilities were demonstrated for all 4 participants in screen-based, tabletop, and orientation and mobility tasks. In addition, 3 of 4 participants recorded improvements in motion discrimination and 2 of 4 participants recorded substantial improvements in spatial discrimination and identification of tabletop objects. Participants reported their unsupervised use of the device included exploring new environments, detecting people, and safely navigating around obstacles. A positive effect of the implant on participants' daily lives in their local environments was confirmed by an orientation and mobility assessor and participant self-report. Emotional well-being was not impacted by device implantation or usage. Conclusions: The completed clinical study demonstrates that the suprachoroidal prosthesis raises no safety concerns and provides improvements in functional vision, activities of daily living, and observer-rated quality of life. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Indexed as

Activities of daily livingBionic eyeFunctional visionRetinitis pigmentosaSuprachoroidal retinal prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID39328823
PMCPMC11426041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.