Skip to main content
Log in

Visual field changes following implantation of the Argus II retinal prosthesis

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Humayun MS, Dorn JD, da Cruz L et al (2012) Interim results from the international trial of Second Sight’s visual prosthesis. Ophthalmology 119:779–788

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rizzo S, Belting C, Cinelli L, Allegrini L, Genovesi-Ebert F, Barca F, di Bartolo E (2014) The Argus II retinal prosthesis: twelve-month outcomes from a single-study center. Am J Ophthalmol 157:1282–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chow AY, Chow VY, Packo KH, Pollack JS, Peyman GA, Schuchard R (2004) The artificial silicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol 122:460–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciavatta VT, Kim M, Wong P, Nickerson JM, Shuler RKJR, McLean GY, Pardue MT (2009) Retinal expression of Fgf2 in RCS rats with subretinal microphotodiode array. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:4523–4530

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bittner AK, Haythornthwaite JA, Diener-West M, Dagnelie G (2013) Worse-than-usual visual fields measured in retinitis pigmentosa related to episodically decreased general health. Br J Ophthalmol 97:145–148

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bittner AK, Ibrahim MA, Haythornthwaite JA, Diener-West M, Dagnelie G (2011) Vision test variability in retinitis pigmentosa and psychosocial factors. Optom Vis Sci 88:1496–1506

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Strougo Z, Badoux A, Duchanel D (1997) Psycho-affective problems associated with retinitis pigmentosa. J Fr Ophthalmol 20:111–116

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Federica Genovesi-Ebert, PhD, Tomaso Caporossi, MD, Francesco Barca, MD, and Emanuele di Bartolo, PhD for their contributions as investigators and as critical reviewers of the study proposal.

Ethical standards

Following a detailed explanation of the risks and benefits of receiving the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System, written informed consent was obtained from the patient. The information presented here came from a larger study, which was approved by the Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana Ethics Committee in March 2012. This larger study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01490827). Study conduct adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanislao Rizzo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rizzo, S., Belting, C., Cinelli, L. et al. Visual field changes following implantation of the Argus II retinal prosthesis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253, 323–325 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2822-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2822-0

Keywords

Navigation