Md, Kim Schaffrath, Md, Hannah Schellhase, Md, Peter Walter, Md, Albert Augustin, Md, Marzio Chizzolini, Md, Bernd Kirchhof, Md, Salvatore Grisanti, Md, Peter Wiedemann, Md, Peter Szurman, Md, Gisbert Richard, Greenberg, Robert J., Phd, Md, Phd, Jessy D. Dorn, Md, Francesco Parmeggiani, Rizzo, Stanislao, Stanislao Rizzo (ORCID:0000-0001-6302-063X), Md, Kim Schaffrath, Md, Hannah Schellhase, Md, Peter Walter, Md, Albert Augustin, Md, Marzio Chizzolini, Md, Bernd Kirchhof, Md, Salvatore Grisanti, Md, Peter Wiedemann, Md, Peter Szurman, Md, Gisbert Richard, Greenberg, Robert J., Phd, Md, Phd, Jessy D. Dorn, Md, Francesco Parmeggiani, Rizzo, Stanislao, and Stanislao Rizzo (ORCID:0000-0001-6302-063X)
IMPORTANCE The Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System is indicated for patients with vision loss due to severe to profound outer retinal degeneration, a group with few treatment options. OBJECTIVES TocollectpostapprovalsafetyandvisualfunctiondatafortheArgusII. DESIGN,SETTING,ANDPARTICIPANTS Multicenter,postapprovalclinicaltrialconductedat9 sites in Germany and Italy. Data were collected from December 2, 2011, to September 30, 2017, and patients were followed-up for 12 months or longer. Patients were 25 years or older with severe to profound outer retinal degeneration, some residual light perception or the ability of the retina to respond to electrical stimulation, and a history of useful form vision and were already planning to undergo Argus II implantation. MAINOUTCOMESANDMEASURES Theprimaryendpointofthisstudywasthenatureandrate of adverse events. Secondary end points included 3 visual function tests: square localization (SL), direction of motion, and grating visual acuity (GVA). RESULTS Forty-sevenpatientswerefollowedfor12monthsorlongerafterimplant.Mean (SD) age was 56 (12) years, 37 (79%) had retinitis pigmentosa, and 27 (57%) were male. Through the first 12 months postimplantation, 23 patients (49%) experienced 51 nonserious adverse events and 12 (26%) experienced 13 serious adverse events (SAEs), 9 of which were judged to be related to the Argus II, and 4 of which were judged to be related to the procedure. The most common SAE was conjunctival erosion, reported in 4 patients. No significance testing was done for group analysis for the SL or direction-of-motion tests. When averaged across the group, patients’ accuracy on the SL test, but not on the direction-of-motion test, appeared better when the Argus II was on than when it was switched off. For GVA, more patients at each point in time achieved the 2.9 GVA cutoff in the implanted eye when the Argus II was on compared with it switched off. CONCLUSIONSANDRELEVANCE Safetyandvisualfunctionoutcomesinthisclinicalpracti