ReviewTherapeutic advances in ophthalmology
Do retinal implants provide long-term efficacy, safety and improve quality of life? A systematic review.
Review in Therapeutic advances in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Technique of Single-Point Scleral Fixation of the Smaller-Incision New-Generation Implantable Miniature Telescope with an 18-Month Follow-Up Period.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bionic vision technologies: progress and perspectives on retinal prostheses and optogenetics for the treatment of advanced retinal degeneration.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Review
- Improve harms reporting in trials of microelectronic retinal implants.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Retinal implants have emerged as interventions to partially restore functional vision such as light perception, motion detection or object localisation in patients with severe vision loss from degenerative retinal conditions, including retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Objectives: To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) impact of retinal implants with ⩾1 year of follow-up. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted (31st July to 31st August 2024) in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Embase, using the terms: ('retinal implant' OR 'retinal prosthesis') AND ('long-term' OR 'follow-up') AND ('efficacy' OR 'safety' OR 'quality of life'). No publication date restrictions were applied. Eligible studies were in English, involved human subjects with retinal degenerations, and reported ⩾1 year follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) cohort study checklist for most studies, as they involved prospective follow-up without randomisation or control groups. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case series was applied to studies with a case series design. Narrative synthesis was applied. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria: 53.85% assessed epiretinal implants (Argus II), 30.77% subretinal (Alpha AMS and PRIMA), and 15.38% suprachoroidal (44 and 49-channel STS). Epiretinal implants improved visual function, with up to 89% better in SLT, 50%-56% in DOM, and 30%-40% reaching ⩾2.9 logMAR when activated. Subretinal implants enhanced light perception, localisation, and grating acuity (to 3.33 cycles/degree), with acuity of 20/460 and 20/550 in some cases. Suprachoroidal devices improved SLT, DOM and GVA. Adverse events were more frequent with epiretinal than other implant types. QoL outcomes improved, particularly in mobility, orientation, and daily tasks. Conclusion: Retinal implants confer functional vision, but acuities remain below 20/200, and recipients continue to meet criteria for legal blindness. Given the high risk of bias, lack of controls and potential placebo effects, further high-quality evidence is needed to confirm their efficacy, safety and QoL impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.