↓ Skip to main content

Interim Results of a Multicenter Trial with the New Electronic Subretinal Implant Alpha AMS in 15 Patients Blind from Inherited Retinal Degenerations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interim Results of a Multicenter Trial with the New Electronic Subretinal Implant Alpha AMS in 15 Patients Blind from Inherited Retinal Degenerations
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00445
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katarina Stingl, Ruth Schippert, Karl U. Bartz-Schmidt, Dorothea Besch, Charles L. Cottriall, Thomas L. Edwards, Florian Gekeler, Udo Greppmaier, Katja Kiel, Assen Koitschev, Laura Kühlewein, Robert E. MacLaren, James D. Ramsden, Johann Roider, Albrecht Rothermel, Helmut Sachs, Greta S. Schröder, Jan Tode, Nicole Troelenberg, Eberhart Zrenner

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed the safety and efficacy of a technically advanced subretinal electronic implant, RETINA IMPLANT Alpha AMS, in end stage retinal degeneration in an interim analysis of two ongoing prospective clinical trials. The purpose of this article is to describe the interim functional results (efficacy). Methods: The subretinal visual prosthesis RETINA IMPLANT Alpha AMS (Retina Implant AG, Reutlingen, Germany) was implanted in 15 blind patients with hereditary retinal degenerations at four study sites with a follow-up period of 12 months (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01024803 and NCT02720640). Functional outcome measures included (1) screen-based standardized 2- or 4-alternative forced-choice (AFC) tests of light perception, light localization, grating detection (basic grating acuity (BaGA) test), and Landolt C-rings; (2) gray level discrimination; (3) performance during activities of daily living (ADL-table tasks). Results: Implant-mediated light perception was observed in 13/15 patients. During the observation period implant mediated localization of visual targets was possible in 13/15 patients. Correct grating detection was achieved for spatial frequencies of 0.1 cpd (cycles per degree) in 4/15; 0.33 cpd in 3/15; 0.66 cpd in 2/15; 1.0 cpd in 2/15 and 3.3 cpd in 1/15 patients. In two patients visual acuity (VA) assessed with Landolt C- rings was 20/546 and 20/1111. Of 6 possible gray levels on average 4.6 ± 0.8 (mean ± SD, n = 10) were discerned. Improvements (power ON vs. OFF) of ADL table tasks were measured in 13/15 patients. Overall, results were stable during the observation period. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 4 patients: 2 movements of the implant, readjusted in a second surgery; 4 conjunctival erosion/dehiscence, successfully treated; 1 pain event around the coil, successfully treated; 1 partial reduction of silicone oil tamponade leading to distorted vision (silicon oil successfully refilled). The majority of adverse events (AEs) were transient and mostly of mild to moderate intensity. Conclusions: Psychophysical and subjective data show that RETINA IMPLANT Alpha AMS is reliable, well tolerated and can restore limited visual functions in blind patients with degenerations of the outer retina. Compared with the previous implant Alpha IMS, longevity of the new implant Alpha AMS has been considerably improved. Alpha AMS has meanwhile been certified as a commercially available medical device, reimbursed in Germany by the public health system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 41 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 18%
Engineering 27 18%
Neuroscience 17 11%
Physics and Astronomy 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 47 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,391,140
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,059
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,249
of 325,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#41
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.