4.3 Article

Surgical Results and Microscopic Analysis of the Tissue Reaction following Implantation and Explantation of an Intraocular Implant for Epiretinal Stimulation in Minipigs

期刊

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 192-198

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000324650

关键词

Retina; Immunohistochemistry; Vitreoretinal surgery; Retinal prosthesis; Epiretinal stimulation; Minipig

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: For the purpose of visual rehabilitation of subjects with photoreceptor degeneration, an implantable microelectronic device for epiretinal stimulation was developed. Our study aimed to show whether implantation and explantation could be conducted safely and to investigate tissue compatibility. Methods: The device was implanted in 5 Gottinger minipigs. Four weeks later, the implant was surgically removed. Histopathological examination that followed aimed at detecting inflammatory or proliferative changes. Stains used were hematoxylin and eosin, leukocyte common antigen, CD68 and glial fibrillary acidic protein. A grinding technique was used to visualize the retinal tissue in conjunction with the retinal tacks. Results: The implantation of the devices was successful in all cases. The explantation was complicated by intraoperative hemorrhages. Complete explantation could only be achieved after modifying the implantation strategy. Histopathology revealed a mild degree of cystic disaggregation of the retina. Immunohistochemically, an increased glial fibrillary acidic protein expression of Muller cells was found, which shows a moderate glial cell activation. Inflammatory cells were absent. Using the grinding technique, tissue adjacent to the retinal tacks showed a mild gliosis. Discussion: The viability of implantation and explantation of the implant in minipigs has been shown. The absence of immunoreactive cells or a considerable glial reaction suggest that the device may be considered safe and suitable for further implantation in humans. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据