I believe that the epiretinal implant will work the best in patients. It does not require any intact optics, which would prove more useful in patients who have little to no vision at all. The ganglia are directly stimulated with an epiretinal implant, while the subretinal implant uses the remaining neurons of the old retinal network. The epiretinal implant is much harder to fix in place, but it provides better “connections” to the brain. It is simply a readout chip that receives signals from an external camera, which is simpler than the subretinal device which actually contains light sensors. Both devices have shown the ability to be biocompatible with cats, proving that one day they might be suitable for human use.
Sources
"Retinal implant." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Feb 2008, 21:29 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 24 Jul 2008
.
Will Retinal Implants Restore Vision?
Eberhart Zrenner (8 February 2002)
Science 295 (5557), 1022. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1067996]
1 comment:
Although i agree that the epiretinal implant might be a better long term choice, I'm not sure whether or not it could technically be called "simpler" because it doesn't have light sensors, but i guess you could argue either way.
Post a Comment