Bionic Eye Telescope To Treat Macular Degeneration 55
Al writes "A miniature telescope that fits inside the eye of someone with macular degeneration and helps them regain normal vision has been developed by a start-up company called VisionCare Ophthalmic Technologies. Macular degeneration affects the center of the retina, making it difficult to read, watch television and recognize faces. The new device, which is about the size of a pencil eraser, works like a fixed telephoto lens within the eye, projecting a magnified image of whatever the wearer is looking at onto a large part of the peripheral retina. Magnifying the image on the eye allows the retinal cells outside the macula to participate, and enables a patient to recognize details using their peripheral vision. Clinical trials suggest that the device could improve vision by about three and a half lines on an eye chart. Last week, an advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration unanimously recommended that the agency approve the implant."
Re:Doesn't everyone have macular degeneration? (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't macular degeneration just a normal part of the aging process?
The wiki page seems to indicate that there's a genetic component, so I don't think it is "normal" meaning everyone will get it.
And just to be clear, you're not implying that if everyone is going to be getting it eventually, that's somehow a reason not to try to cure it, are you? I don't care how "normal" it is, I wouldn't want to go blind, just as I don't want to get "normal" osteoporosis, hair loss, and loss of mental accuity etc.
Re:Doesn't everyone have macular degeneration? (Score:5, Informative)
"Isn't macular degeneration just a normal part of the aging process?"
It is more common amongst the elderly; I don't know that this makes it "normal". What's the difference? If nature says you should stop seeing at 50, you should stop seeing?
This could also be applicable to any number of macular dystrophies that affect people at younger ages; the point is it reduces the importance of the macula and lets the user get the most out of the peripheral vision, which usually isn't impacted (at least not to the same degree).
"we take the lenses from the telescope, and make them really large and flat, and put them in front of the face, maybe with a wire or plastic holder"
Glasses don't help with macular degeneration. The lenses in glasses can't do what this can do. If you're gong to be condescending, you might want to get your facts straight first.
Re:Doesn't everyone have macular degeneration? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a specific disease, or rather family of diseases.
It's very common (by their eighties about 1 in 3 people has it) but it's *not* normal ageing.
Unfortunately many people, especially older people, do indeed think that losing vision as they grow older is just natural, and don't seek help; even a few years ago they weren't in fact missing out on much as treatment was pretty useless, but there's now a much more effective treatment (Lucentis) for the 10% of people with the most aggressive and damaging variant of the disease (so-called "wet" macular degeneration) and it's heartbreaking when people miss out on it because they don't realise that there's *always* a specific reason if your vision goes bad on you.
(I'm an eye surgeon specialising in this very area, and I spend almost half my work time on this disease every week)
Re:this is great news! (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't halt the degeneration, it allows individuals implanted with the device to make better use of areas of the retina that have not been affected.
If you have macular degeneration, it might help you; if you have some other problem, it isn't particularly likely to help you.
Re:Doesn't everyone have macular degeneration? (Score:5, Informative)
The device described in the article is not in fact a new breakthrough concept; there are a number of similar devices out there already. Some just go for magnification; some try to divert light away from damaged central retina (macula) to normal peripheral retina. The trouble is that peripheral retina just isn't as sensitive even if it's healthy.
The actual surgery is not actually very difficult for a competent eye surgeon; it's just a variation, really, on the standard modern cataract operation involving an intraocular lens implant.
The clever part (as with a lot of surgery) is trying to decide who would benefit from the operation beforehand. If there's too much damage to the retina this won't help; if there isn't all that much, then the risks of the surgery may outweigh the benefit.
The major reason why this sort of technique has not already become standard practice is because there aren't yet reliable ways of assessing beforehand which patients will benefit.
BTW the cost is steep but a lot less than a course of Lucentis treatment (the best current option for actual treatment, as opposed to rehabilitation). If it helps the patient retain their independence it would probably pay for itself.
There are a lot of unanswered questions about this sort of technology still, and the way reporters just regurgitate the manufacturers publicity handouts and proclaim a new "cure for blindness" causes a lot of grief to vulnerable people by cruelly raising false hopes.
(I'm an ophthalmic surgeon specialising in retinal diseases)
Re:Doesn't everyone have macular degeneration? (Score:3, Informative)
Losing the ability to read or drive is not comprehensible to most of us... this could be great news for millions of people.