Slashdot Log In
Patients get Solar Implants in Eyes
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Feb 08, 2005 09:12 AM
from the and-you-thought-lasik-was-badass dept.
from the and-you-thought-lasik-was-badass dept.
Ben Sullivan writes "As reported at Science Blog, ophthalmologists have implanted Artificial Silicon Retina microchips in the eyes of five patients to treat vision loss caused by retinitis pigmentosa. The implant is a 2mm chip that contains about 5,000 microscopic solar cells that convert light into electrical impulses. Already some patients have experienced improvements such as not bumping into objects around the house, and being able to read the time on a clock."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if they do figure out how to make this like our vision, don't solar cells "see" in higher wavelengths than our eyes do? Wouldn't people not see blue and purple but instead get UV and the like?
Re:Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what is the life of the solar cells? Will they have to be replaced time to time?
Parent
Re:Quality (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
The brain learns (Score:4, Interesting)
When surgeons re-attach a severed limb they don't worry about getting all the neurons connected correctly. They connect them randomly, and the brain learns the new mapping.
Physically therapy takes care of the learning, but it is a side effect, the brain is good at learning new mappings. The body generally has many more problems making everything work, in ways that are not related to incorrectly attached neurons.
Parent
Re:The brain learns (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it took about half a week for people's brains to respond 'correctly' to a given situation (e.g. not bumping into things).
When the goggles were removed, the test subjects saw things upside down. The brain had adjusted sufficiently to seeing upside down that reverting to the standard way up confused it.
There was a comment from one of the users that he did occasionally still get confused, which implies that the wiring in these photodetectors may occasionally confuse the user slightly as the brain tries to remember which signal protocol it's using, but the main point is the speed of learning seen in the experiment.
Parent
Re:Quality (Score:3, Informative)
The brain is dynamic enough to remap the signals into something coherent.
Re:Quality (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quality (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, and then find out the hard way that 90% of humans don't implement the protocols according to the spec.
Article Text (Score:3, Informative)
Rush principal investigator Dr. John Pollack performed the surgeries with Dr. Kirk Packo, Dr. Pauline Merrill, Dr. Mathew MacCumber, and Dr. Jack Cohen. All are members of Illinois Retina Associates, S.C., a private practice group and are on the Rush faculty. Patients leave the hospital the same day and will be followed for two years as part of the study, and then indefinitely.
The patients were recruited from a pool of about 5,000 applicants.
The implants are designed for people with retinal diseases such as macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa, which cause blindness and vision impairment in about 10 million Americans. More than one million of these people are legally blind.
"As is commonly seen in with retinitis pigmentosa, these patients all have severe narrowing of their visual fields down to a very small central circle, and all patients in the study are legally blind," says Pollack.
The Artificial Silicon RetinaTM (ASR) was invented by Dr. Alan Chow, pediatric ophthalmologist and Rush faculty member, who developed the chip and founded Optobionics, with his brother Vincent, vice president of engineering. Optobionics is located in Naperville, Illinois.
"This is an expansion of the study of the first 10 patients completed in 2002," says study investigator Dr. Kirk Packo, who oversees the three participating sites. The sites are Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Emory University School of Medicine/Atlanta VA Medical Center and Rush.
Pollack says the current protocol has been modified to reduce the likelihood of inadvertant scientific bias. "We operated on the right eye of each of the initial 10 patients. For the next 20 patients we will randomly select which eye will receive the ASR chip. In addition, post-operative vision testers will be masked as to which eye received the ASR chip implant. The current study is being performed at these study centers in order to independently validate previous studies performed by Optobionics."
The first 10 patients all reported some degree of improvement in visual function, says Pollack. "Improvement in visual function was variable and included the ability to read letters, improvement in color vision, and expansion of their visual field. Some patients gained new ability to recognize facial features -- something that they were unable to do before ASR chip implantation. Some patients have experienced improvement in activities of daily living such as improved ambulation-not bumping into objects around the house, and reading the time on a clock."
Still in Phase II clinical trials, Pollack cautions it is still too early to determine what percentage of patients might experience improvement in vision and what resolution capability these patients might eventually have. "Although we hope that all patients receiving the chip will experience some improvement in visual function, we can't say for sure how these patients will respond to this new treatment since this is still an experimental trial. If this study and future studies show safety and efficacy of the chip and it's approved by the FDA, it could be as soon as three to five years that this technology would be available to others."
Surgical Information
The ASR chip contains approximately 5,000 microscopic solar cells that convert light into electrical impulses. The purpose of the chip is to replace damaged photoreceptors, the "light-sensing" cells of the eye, which normally convert light into electrical signals within the retina. Loss of photoreceptor cells occurs in persons with retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and other retinal diseases.
Orson Scott Card (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:2)
Re:Orson Scott Card (Score:3, Informative)
MPAA owns your eyes (Score:5, Interesting)
One of [the] cool features [of a science-fictional eye implant that this product resembles] was that you could pull pictures and video off of it, as well as see through it. It was an in-skull camera.
Watch people with implants be banned from entering movie theaters.
Parent
Improvements (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Improvements (Score:4, Funny)
That's assuming of course that I can't get frikken lasers (I have a feeling an in-eye laser wouldn't be so great on the cornea)
Parent
Re:Improvements (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Improvements (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, you don't have to believe it if you don't want, for all those sceptics, I'll agree it seems a pretty outrageous claim, but despite efforts of scientists, they have been unable to disprove her claims. She has successfully seen into people's bodies and correct one claim that a
Re:Improvements (Score:5, Informative)
She had to specify the problems of 7 or 9 patients (can't remember exactly) - she did score quite high, but not high enough for it to be any more believable than educated guess work. Threw a bit of a tantrum when she found out she would not be able to view the bodies of the patients before making her decision.
She took far longer to make a diagnosis under test conditions than the the scratchy home video's from Russia.
She had been hanging around hospitals back home, so this is not at all suprising. All the evidence points toward her 'not' having any magical powers.
Parent
Re:Improvements (Score:3, Informative)
But, instead, she mis-diagnosed some of the more obvious problems, including the patient who had a missing section of skull covered by a metal plate. The fact that she got 4 out of 7 right
Re:Improvements (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Improvements (Score:3, Funny)
excellent (Score:2)
Soon, I too will have night-vision.
Bwahahahaha...
Any word yet on those muscular implants?
Re:excellent (Score:3, Interesting)
Any word yet on those muscular implants?
I guess so... [maxsportsmag.com]
Silicon implants make the world a better place. (Score:5, Funny)
Stevie Wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd imagine that his condition has degenerated far too much along to be aided by this, but if I recall correctly, they nonetheless said he might be a candidate for something similar. I don't think they ended up using him, however.
Re:Stevie Wonder... (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt this is true. There's also a part of the brain that "shuts off" (sorry don't know the medical term). A friend of mine had misaligned eyes when I met him. When he was little he could see out of either one. Of course, using both at the same time resulted in double vision, so he had to use only one at a time. Eventually, he favore
in time.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Two for one... (Score:2, Funny)
So my answer is...yes
Re:in time.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If your brain is hardware, your soul is the software.
Next question.
Bionics (Score:4, Interesting)
I want the implant that converts... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I want the implant that converts... (Score:2, Funny)
"There is no such device on file."
[looking mildly annoyed] "No problem--here's how you BUILD it..."
not exactly "solar" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not exactly "solar" (Score:2, Informative)
Correct me if I am wrong
Re:not exactly "solar" (Score:3, Insightful)
Solar? Implants... (Score:3, Insightful)
Incrediably important (Score:5, Interesting)
THE REAL treasure here is knowing the brain can adapt. Think about it, they were deprived of sight, and then their brain was able to REORGANIZE itself to understand totally FOREIGN signals and use them as input.
It demonstrates how our wetware is more adaptable than any hardware.
Re:Incrediably important (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, just wait until we're able to reflash the firmware directly.
Parent
Resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
5000 cells, that's an area of 70x70 cells. Is that enough to see with or am I missing something?
Re:Resolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Resolution (Score:3, Informative)
Coaxial cameras (Score:3, Informative)
Rods, which predominate the wide-angle camera system, are like hyped B&W film... great night sensitivity, but grainy. Cones, which dominate the inner narrow-angle camera system give color vision, but require much higher light levels to operate.
Great News, Little to do With Solar (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing to point out is that this disease is a degeneration of the retina. It's called pigmentosa due to the fact that as the retinal cells die, small spots appear on the retina. The degenerations starts on the outside, and moves inward, creating a tunnel-like feeling for the patient.
My uncle had surgery in Cuba (We live in Guatemala, so let's just skip the whole Cuba-American posts) where they operated his retina, and treated it with oxygen and Ozone therapies. This type of operation is not intended to cure it, but to stop it. This was about 5 years ago, and his retinitis pigmentosa has not spread, but it's still a bit early to know for sure.
If you have more questions there is tons of information on the web
--------------------
Arturo Mijangos
Subretinal Non-Powered Approach Has Limits (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic idea is beautiful and elegant: you put an array of tiny photodiodes behind the retina, exactly where the photoreceptor cells (rods and cones) are. Shining light on each of these nearly-cell-sized photodiodes creates a localized voltage which should stimulate a small handful of cells, generating a signal that will mimic the original biologically transduced input to the retina. The photodiodes nicely supplant the dying photosensitive cells. It sounds perfect.
I was very impressed with their presentation at a one-day symposium on artificial vision I attended at USC a few years ago, until one of the audience members pointed out that they had done some calculations, and it seemed that one would need incredibly high light levels to generate enough current to stimulate the local cells. Dr. Chow admitted that, even being optimistic about the conversion efficiency of photodiodes (which here need to be optimized for biocompatibility more than efficiency), the physics involved dictates that you would need light bright enough to cause damage to even the non-photosensitive tissue to get the device to work. Dr. Chow then backpedaled to say that even if the device cannot restore lost vision, it can perhaps supplant any remaining healty cells to improve vision in low-sighted patients. That question-anwer cycle was the first point in his presentation where he backed off from the claim of restoring full vision to blind patients.
Dr. Chow's results were done in a private laboratory, part of a company set up to profit from his advances. He must answer to his shareholders, and his results are not open to the level of scruitiny that standard scientific claims are. He was reluctant to answer questions at this session. Therefore, as a scientist I am bound by the lack of openness to view his claims with a grain of salt.
Other efforts to create artificial vision are still having trouble with just a handful of points of light. While I believe that the subretinal approach has a good chance of eventually proving fruitful, using a silicon-based device that lacks an external power source just cannot produce normal vision. This is why the article concentrates on the improvements in existing low vision, rather than discussing restoration of lost vision.
Re:But wouldn't (Score:2, Funny)
I'm excited! (Score:5, Interesting)
On friday I'm going in for essentially the same surgery, only instead of inserting a chip, they try to deal with the bad blood vessel. Then, after a week of lying face down, and a month of no flying (which kills my easy work commute and turns it into a 5 hour ordeal), I get to find out how much damage was done to my retinal pigments by the blood that has been pooling there for half a year.
Damage that *used* to be un-repairable. With this technology now deployed there's a good chance it will be routine for people like me in 10-15 years.
And given that the likelyhood of diagnosis in the second (currently good) eye is about 1 in 50 per year from now on, the stats give me 15-25 years before I start worrying about getting an artificial retina.
Hooray for bionics!
Parent
Re:But (Score:3, Informative)
52% had 20/40 or better vision in at least one eye, 25% had 20/200 or worse vision, and 0.5% had no light perception
So, in conclusion, don't be a cock. Seriously, tell those people they aren't blind.
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
Normally RP is diagnosed later on in life so the full effects of the disease are not normally experienced, however many suffer from childhood and it is those people that will benefit from this type of technology.
In tandem with this research there has also been progress made in retinal transplants using stem cell growth mediums to allow the cells to function normally.
Its nice to see some hope, particularly for my wife who has been told that she would be blind by the time she was ten. That was 23 years ago.
Parent
Re:All we need now (Score:4, Funny)
Care to volunteer?
Parent