HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Montezuma, S. R. Articles by Rizzo, J. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Montezuma, S. R. Articles by Rizzo, J. F., III

Biocompatibility of Materials Implanted into the Subretinal Space of Yucatan Pigs

¹From the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and the Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; the ²Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama; and ³The Center for Innovative Visual Rehabilitation, VA Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

PURPOSE. To assess the biocompatibility of materials for possible use in subretinal prostheses.

METHODS. Strips (0.5 x 5 mm; 10-µm thick) of either plain poly(imide) or poly(imide) coated with amorphous aluminum oxide (AAO), amorphous carbon (AC), parylene, poly(vinyl pyrrolidone) (PVP), or poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) were each implanted into the subretinal space of four Yucatan miniature pigs. Two types of control surgery without implantation were performed in four other animals. Electroretinograms (ERGs) were performed before and after surgery. All animals were euthanatized 3 months after surgery, and histologic slides of the retina were assessed for 15 criteria. Paired, two-tailed Student’s t-tests were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS. Across all animals, the mean amplitude of the ERG b-wave did not differ from baseline after 3 months. In implanted animals, the histologic analyses revealed that (1) all the implanted materials produced abnormalities that were significantly greater than in the control subjects; (2) overall, PEG, parylene, and PVP produced less histologic disruption than the other three materials; (3) parylene and PEG did not differ significantly from the control in disturbing retinal anatomy; (4) only PI and AAO produced RPE alterations that were significantly greater than in control subjects; and (5) AAO and PI produced a significantly greater degree of peri-implant cellular responses than did the other materials.

CONCLUSIONS. All implants produced some alteration of the retina, but there were clear differences among the materials in the degree to which their presence disturbed the normal anatomy of the retina or RPE or incited tissue reactions around the implant.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Scholz Perspectives on: Materials Aspects for Retinal Prostheses Journal of Bioactive and Compatible Polymers, September 1, 2007; 22(5): 539 - 568. [Abstract] [PDF]