ReviewFrontiers in medical technology2026
Bionic vision technologies: progress and perspectives on retinal prostheses and optogenetics for the treatment of advanced retinal degeneration.
Review in Frontiers in medical technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advanced degenerative retinal diseases [e.g., retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD)] are characterized by irreversible photoreceptor loss, and conventional interventions rarely prevent progression to profound vision loss at advanced stages. Retinal prostheses and optogenetic therapies are two leading bionic strategies to bypass absent photoreceptors, yet both are limited by a shared "encoding-biointerface" bottleneck: converting external scenes into interpretable neural activity in surviving retinal circuits with adequate selectivity, safety margins, and long-term stability. This review critically compares the two approaches in spatial resolution, neural adaptation, and biosafety, while explicitly distinguishing clinical evidence from preclinical and proof-of-concept studies. Retinal prostheses provide near-term light perception and limited form vision but are constrained by current spread, non-selective pathway/axon recruitment, interface reactions, and cortical decoding burden. Optogenetic restoration offers cell-type-biased reactivation and potentially more physiological processing, but currently remains coupled to external light-delivery hardware and is limited by scattering, heterogeneous transduction, safety-limited irradiance, restricted dynamic range, and adeno-associated virus (AAV)-related inflammatory risk. We highlight emerging integrative directions, including opto-electronic hybrid interfaces, adaptive encoding, broadband subretinal nanomaterial-based photovoltaic nanoprostheses, and experimental acoustic modalities (e.g., focused ultrasound and sonogenetics), alongside ethical and accessibility considerations for translation.
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.