Medical Policy

This document addresses artificial retinal devices that include various artificial retinas used as a method to restore sight for those who have experienced blindness as a result of degenerative retinal diseases (RD).

Note: For a high-level overview of this document, please see 'Summary for Members and Families' below.

 Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

The use of artificial retinal devices is considered investigational and not medically necessary for all indications.

This document describes clinical studies and expert recommendations, and explains whether artificial retina devices are appropriate. The following summary does not replace the medical necessity criteria or other information in this document. The summary may not contain all of the relevant criteria or information. This summary is not medical advice. Please check with your healthcare provider for any advice about your health.

Key Information

Artificial retinal devices are being studied as a possible way to help people who have lost vision due to serious eye diseases like retinitis pigmentosa (RP). These devices may include implants that work with a camera to send signals to the brain. Some of these devices attach to the front of the retina (epiretinal), while others are placed behind the retina (subretinal). A few small studies show that these devices may help some people notice light, motion, or basic shapes. However, they do not restore normal vision. Some studies reported problems after surgery, like eye infections, swelling, or damage to the eye. Some devices are no longer being made, and better research is still needed.

What the Studies Show

Several small studies have looked at artificial retinal devices, mostly in people with severe RP. One study of the Argus II system found that some people were better able to find objects or detect motion when the system was turned on. However, the improvements were limited, and most tests were done in a lab, not real-life settings. The study also reported eye problems in some participants, such as eye infections and low eye pressure. Follow-up studies showed that most devices were still working after 5 years, but there were more reports of eye damage, and a few devices had to be removed.

Other studies of newer devices, like the VT Bionic Eye System, reported fewer serious side effects, but did not involve enough people to show the devices are safe and effective in a wider population long-term. These early results suggest that the devices may be safe for short-term use, but the small size of the studies and other limits mean the results are uncertain. Researchers agree that much larger, better designed studies are needed to find out whether these devices improve daily life and vision in a meaningful way. Some devices are still being developed outside the United States, but none have been approved for use here.

Is this clinically appropriate?

This treatment is not appropriate because it has not been proven to improve health. Studies so far have involved only small numbers of people, with short follow-up periods, and many of the tests were done in lab settings rather than in real life. While some people did show limited improvements in seeing light or shapes, serious side effects were reported in some cases. Better studies are needed to know if artificial retinal devices improve vision or daily life for people with advanced eye diseases.

(Return to Description/Scope)

Summary:

This document evaluates clinical evidence on artificial retinal devices intended for individuals with profound vision loss from degenerative retinal diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP). The available evidence highlights findings from small feasibility studies, including the second-generation suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis, which demonstrated short-term surgical safety and mechanical stability in 4 participants, but remains limited by its single-center design, lack of independent outcome assessment, and short duration relative to a lifelong implant. Broader evidence on other systems, such as the Argus II, continues to show only modest improvements on simple visual tasks and reports of device-related complications over long-term follow-up. Professional guidance referenced in the rationale includes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Technology Assessment, which emphasizes the need for validated real-world functional outcome measures and larger, independently conducted trials before determining meaningful clinical benefit. Overall, the evidence base remains constrained by small sample sizes, limited generalizability, and reliance on early-phase studies.

Discussion

In February 2013, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) to the Argus^® II system (Second Sight^® Medical Products, Inc., Sylmar, CA). An HDE exempts the device from a review of clinical effectiveness. The FDA concluded the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System will not expose blind individuals with severe outer retinal degeneration to an unreasonable or significant risk of illness or injury. The FDA concluded the initial data demonstrated a probable benefit which outweighed the risks of the device.

In a pilot safety and feasibility study, 6 participants with vision loss as a result of RP underwent implantation of an artificial silicone retina (ASR^®, Optobionics, Glen Ellyn, IN) microchip within the subretinal space in the right eye (Chow, 2004). For this study, the left eye was maintained as the control. Intraocular pressure (IOP) to greater than 25 mm Hg was the only common adverse event reported within the immediate postoperative period. This occurred in 3 of the 6 cases within the first week of the procedure. All received treatment with medication, and the IOP returned to preoperative value. Within the follow-up period of 6 to 18 months, visual improvement was reported in all study group participants as well as surprising visual changes in the retinal area surrounding the implant. There were no severe adverse safety events reported in the study. The author explained that further study is needed to validate these findings and determine the group of individuals that will benefit from the ASR device.

De Balthasar (2008), reported on 6 blind participants due to RP who underwent retinal prosthesis implantation. The study protocol received approval by the FDA as a clinical trial under the investigational device exemption (IDE). The study looked at the perceptual threshold in retinal prostheses.

Ahuja (2011) reported a multicenter study in which 27 blind participants with severe to profound RP underwent implantation of the Argus II prosthesis in an attempt to partially restore vision. All participants were reported to have some degree of bare light perception (BLP) prior to implantation of the prosthesis or upon clinical follow-up. None of the participants had a reportable visual acuity prior to the procedure. Square localization tasks were used to evaluate the participant’s ability to localize and touch a high contrast square target on a touch screen monitor. The author reported that 96% of implanted participants studied had responses that were significantly more accurate and 93% had responses that were more repeatable with the system “on” compared with the system “off.”

For the subjects who showed significant improvement in accuracy with the system on compared with the system off, the factor of improvement ranged from 1.25 to 4.63. This range was largely due to the variability in performance with the system off. (The standard deviation of the mean accuracy across all subjects was 86.3 pixels with system off compared with 51.4 with the system on.) In other words, the rare cases of only marginal improvement in accuracy with the system on were due to the fact that a few subjects had enough light perception and eye-hand coordination to perform the task with their native vision. This limited the possible range of improvement with the system on.

This study provides promising initial results for the Argus II prosthesis and suggests it may be able to provide partial vision restoration in blinded individuals, although ongoing research is needed to validate the outcomes.

Humayun (2012) reported interim results from an ongoing feasibility trial of Second Sight’s visual prosthesis (Argus II). This single-arm, prospective study evaluated the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System in blind participants with severe RP or other outer retinal degeneration. Thirty participants in the United States and Europe were implanted with the device, median age of implantation 57.5 ± 9.9 years. Additional entry criteria included bare or no light perception and a prior history of some useful form of vision. A total of 27 of 28 participants (96%) were able to perform object location better with the system on versus system off. For motion discrimination, 16 of 28 participants (57%) performed better with the system on, and for discrimination of oriented grating 23% performed better with the system on. After the surgery, 11 of 30 participants experienced a total of 23 serious adverse events, which included erosion of the conjunctiva, dehiscence over the extraocular implant, retinal detachment, inflammation, and hypotony (low intraocular pressure). Although the interim results show promise, the study sample size was small with limited duration of follow-up (minimum of 6 months up to 2.6 years) and outcome measures were limited to visual tasks in a laboratory setting. Additional research is needed to validate these preliminary findings.

In 2015, Ho reported long-term safety results in 29 of 30 participants included in the Argus II study. At 36 months post implantation, a total of 23 adverse events were reported in 11 study participants. The most frequently reported adverse events were conjunctival erosion (n=4), hypotony (n=4), conjunctival dehiscence (n=3), and presumed endophthalmitis (n=3).

da Cruz (2016) reported 5-year performance and safety results in the Argus II study. Out of the original 30 participants enrolled, 24 remained with functioning devices at 5 years post-implantation. The authors reported that visual function assessment results at 5 years were similar to those at 3 years and continued to show efficacy of the Argus II. The square localization assessment resulted in 81% of participants performing better with the device on; while the direction of motion assessment resulted in 50% of participants performing better with the device on; and the grating visual acuity resulted in 38% of participants performing better with the device on. The safety results showed that only one new serious adverse event developed between 3 to 5 years. A rhegmatogenous retinal detachment was identified in the implanted eye of 1 participant. Three devices were explanted: one at 14 months, another at 3.5 years, and the most recent at 4.3 years. One individual experienced chronic hypotony and ptosis and 2 other individuals experienced recurrent conjunctival erosion. Participants in the original study will be followed for 10 years to gather data on the safety and efficacy of the device. The authors concluded the Argus II continues to serve as an option for individuals with RP and may improve some basic visual functions.

In 2016, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conducted a Technology Assessment on retinal prostheses systems (RPS) in the Medicare population with RP and age-related macular degeneration leading to visual loss. The authors concluded that “future studies of RPS devices should make an effort to report valid and reliable measures of important outcomes, especially day-to-day function and quality of life using the FLORA, IADL-VLV, and IVI.”

In 2022, Second Sight ceased manufacturing all Argus II devices. The FDA was notified and subsequently approved discontinuation of the post-approval study of the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System (NCT01860092).

Allen (2025) published a manufacturer sponsored, prospective, single-center, single-arm, non-blinded, pilot clinical trial involving 4 participants that assessed the safety and stability of the VT Bionic Eye System (Bionic Vision Technologies, Melbourne, Australia). VT Bionic Eye System is a second generation suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis (ScRP). The trial assessed the safety and stability profile of in participants with RP for 2.0-2.7 years after implantation. No device related serious adverse events were reported during the follow-up period (no endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, hypotony, severe intraocular inflammation). All 4 participants recovered, adverse events were described as mild to moderate and consistent with similar ocular surgeries. The most frequently reported adverse events were lid swelling (all 4), extraocular discomfort (2/4), postauricular discomfort or superficial pain at the surgical sites (3/4), and mild retinal hemorrhage in 2 participants which resolved with no sequelae. Additionally one choroidal effusion resolved without treatment. The results showed that in carefully selected individuals with end-stage RP, the device was implanted without intra-operative complications, showed good mechanical stability and low hardware failure, and did not show imaging evidence of major chronic retinal or choroidal damage at 2.7 years post-operatively. Key limitations of the study include extremely small sample, single center design without a control group, potential bias due to conflicts of interest, lack of independent outcome analysis, and a relatively short follow-up period for an implant that is intended for lifelong use. The authors concluded that the trial provides early supportive safety data and feasibility for the suprachoroidal approach, however, it cannot establish a long-term safety or comparative advantage. Larger, multicenter, independently run studies, with longer follow-up are needed before broad clinical adoption or regulatory decisions can be recommended.

The PRIMAvera study was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-group, baseline-controlled industry sponsored trial (NCT0476584) evaluating the safety and efficacy of the photovoltaic retina implant microarray (PRIMA) system (Pixium Vision, Paris, France). The devices is a subretinal implant. Thirty eight adults aged ≥60 years with bilateral GA, foveal involvement in the study eye, and severe central vision loss (defined as visual acuity ≥1.2 logMAR)  with advanced geographic atrophy due to age-related macular degeneration were enrolled. Participants underwent surgical implantation of a 2×2 mm subretinal photovoltaic array within the atrophic macula and used an external camera-and-glasses system to project processed near-infrared images onto the implant. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in visual acuity (defined as ≥0.2 logMAR) at 12 months, and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of procedure or device-related serious adverse events. The study did not include a randomized comparator, sham control, or active alternative intervention. At 12 months 32 participants (84%) completed the efficacy assessment; 81% (26/32; 95% CI, 64-93) achieved the primary efficacy endpoint. The mean improvement in visual acuity at 12 months was approximately 0.5 logMAR when assessed with the PRIMA system. Visual acuity assessed without the PRIMA glasses remained unchanged from baseline, indicating that observed improvements reflected prosthetic system-dependent vision rather than recovery of native retinal function. Although most participants demonstrated central visual perception and could identify letters or words under test conditions, patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes did not show consistent or statistically meaningful improvement from baseline. It should be noted that the missing outcome data were addressed using a prespecified multiple-imputation approach. Twenty six serious adverse events occurred in 19 of 38 participants (50%), all attributed to the implantation procedure or combined procedure/device effects, including ocular hypertension, retinal breaks, macular holes, hemorrhage, and retinal detachment; most events occurred early and resolved with treatment. Most significant adverse events (81%) occurred within the first two months after surgery, and the majority resolved with treatment. Reported significant adverse events included: ocular hypertension (16%), peripheral retinal breaks (13%), full-thickness macular holes (8%), subretinal hemorrhage (8%), and choroidal neovascularization (5%), as well as retinal detachment, proliferative vitreoretinopathy, and choroidal complications (each ≤3%). Four of the events (15%) were classified as severe and required additional surgical intervention. Retinal imaging demonstrated preservation of inner retinal layers; however, the area of retinal atrophy increased more in implanted eyes than in non-implanted eyes, which investigators attributed to effects of subretinal surgery. The study provides low- to moderate-certainty evidence that the PRIMA implant system can produce measurable improvements in central visual acuity under controlled testing conditions in highly selected patients with advanced GA due to AMD. The intervention is associated with a substantial rate of procedure-related serious adverse events, and long-term durability, safety, and comparative effectiveness remain uncertain. In the absence of randomized or comparative data the evidence is insufficient to determine the net health benefit of the PRIMA system relative to standard low-vision rehabilitation or other assistive technologies (Holz, 2025). The PRIMA implant is not currently an FDA approved device.

The following are RPS in development outside the United States, and have not received FDA approval or clearance:

• The Alpha IMS (Retinal Implant AG, Reutlingen, Germany)
• EPIRET3 Retinal Implant (Phillips-University Marburg, Germany)
• Intelligent Retinal Implant System (Pixum Vision, Paris, France)
• The Alpha IMS (Retinal Implant AG, Reutlingen, Germany)
• The Microelectrode-STS (suprachoroidal-transretinal stimulation) system (Osaka University, Japan)

The retina is a light-sensitive, layered tissue located inside the eye that delivers visual messages via the optic nerve to the brain. Also, there are blood vessels that nourish the retina in an under layer of the eye called the choroid. Another blood supply to the outer aspect of the retina layer is the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE). Visual impairment or blindness can occur as a result of a variety of retinal diseases including RP and some forms of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). According to the National Eye Institute (NEI), there are approximately 2.07 million Americans 50 years and over who are currently blind, and an estimated 2.1 percent of adults aged 50 and older have AMD and experience visual impairments. By 2050, the estimated number of individuals with AMD is expected to double, with white Americans to account for the majority of cases (NEI, 2022).

There are two types of retinal implant systems currently under study. Epiretinal implants are positioned on the surface of the retina and receive light signals from an electronic camera mounted in the frame of eyeglasses. These electronic images are transmitted to a microchip implanted in the retina. Subretinal implants are positioned behind the retina and receive light directly from the environment. The subretinal implant is a silicone based device containing several thousand micro-electrode tipped microphotodiodes powered by incoming light. The electrical charge produced by these microphotodiodes is designed to alter the membrane potentials of adjacent retinal neurons and simulate how light would normally activate these cells to form visual images. An intact optic nerve pathway is necessary for these devices to function.

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD): A slowly progressive, painless disease affecting the macula that blurs the sharp, central vision needed for "straight-ahead" activities such as reading, sewing, and driving.

Artificial Retina: A device intended to restore vision loss caused by retinal disorders. The device is purported to replace or improve the natural retina function by transmitting images from a small eye-glass-mounted camera wirelessly to a microelectrode implanted on an individuals damaged retina, which sends electrical signals via the optic nerve to the brain so it may interpret an image.

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP): A group of hereditary retinal diseases that results in a progressive deterioration of specialized, light-absorbing cells found in the retina, and is characterized by advanced visual field loss.

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this document are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.

When services are Investigational and Not Medically Necessary:

Peer Reviewed Publications:

1. Ahuja AK, Dorn JD, Caspi A, et al. Blind subjects implanted with the Argus II retinal prosthesis are able to improve performance in a spatial-motor task. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011; 95(4):539-543.
2. Allen PJ, Kolic M, Baglin EK, et al. Bionics Institute and Centre for Eye Research Australia Retinal Prosthesis Consortium. Second-generation (44-channel) suprachoroidal retinal prosthesis: surgical stability and safety during a 2-year clinical trial. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2025; 53(5):529-541.
3. Chow AY, Chow VY, Packo KH, et al. The artificial silicon retina microchip for the treatment of vision loss from retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122(4):460-469.
4. Dagnelie G, Christopher P, Arditi A, et al. Performance of real-world functional vision tasks by blind subjects improves after implantation with the Argus^® II retinal prosthesis system. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017; 45(2):152-159.
5. da Cruz L, Dorn JD, Humayun MS, et al. Argus II study group. Five-year safety and performance results from the Argus II retinal prosthesis system clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123(10):2248-2254.
6. de Balthasar C, Patel S, Roy A, et al. Factors affecting perceptual thresholds in epiretinal prostheses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49(6):2303-2314.
7. Ho AC, Humayun MS, Dorn JD, et al. Long-term results from an epiretinal prosthesis to restore sight to the blind. Ophthalmology. 2015; 122(8):1547-1554.
8. Holz FG, Le Mer Y, Muqit MMK, et al. Subretinal photovoltaic implant to restore vision in geographic atrophy due to AMD. N Engl J Med. 2026; 394(3):232-242.
9. Humayun MS, Dorn JD, da Cruz L, et al. Interim results from the international trial of Second Sight's visual prosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119(4):779-788.
10. Mahadevappa M, Weiland JD, Yanai D, et al. Perceptual thresholds and electrode impedance in three retinal prosthesis subjects. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005; 13(2):201-206.
11. Yue L, Wuyyuru V, Gonzalez-Calle A, et al. Retina-electrode interface properties and vision restoration by two generations of retinal prostheses in one patient-one in each eye. J Neural Eng. 2020; 17(2):026020.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retinal prostheses in the Medicare population. Technology Assessment Report. September 30, 2016. Project ID: RPST0515. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/downloads/id103TA.pdf. Accessed on December 2, 2025.
2. American Academy of Ophthalmologists (AAO). Retinal Panel, Preferred Practice Patterns Committee. Age-related macular degeneration. January 2015. For additional information visit the AAO website at: http://one.aao.org/CE/PracticeGuidelines/PPP.aspx. Accessed on December 2, 2025.
3. Second Sight Medical Products. New enrollment post-approval study of the Argus^® II retinal prosthesis system. NLM Identifier: NCT01860092. Last updated December 23, 2021. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01860092?term=ARGUS+II+retina&rank=5. Accessed on December 2, 2025.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Summary of Safety and Effectiveness: Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System Humanitarian Device Exemptions No.H110002. Rockville, MD: FDA. Available at: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112091520/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm343162.htm. Accessed on December 2, 2025.

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS). VEHSS modeled estimates for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Last reviewed May 15, 2024. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/vision-health-data/prevalence-estimates/amd-prevalence.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/visionhealth/vehss/estimates/amd-prevalence.html. Accessed on December 2, 2025. 
2. National Eye Institute. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) data and statistics. Last reviewed November 25, 2025. Available at: https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/resources-for-health-educators/eye-health-data-and-statistics/age-related-macular-degeneration-amd-data-and-statistics. Accessed on December 2, 2025.
3. National Eye Institute. At a glance: Retinitis Pigmentosa. Last reviewed August 6, 2025. Available at: https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and-diseases/retinitis-pigmentosa. Accessed on December 2, 2025.
4. National Human Genome Research Institute. What is retinitis pigmentosa? December 27, 2013. Available at: http://www.genome.gov/13514348. Accessed on December 2, 2025.

Argus II
Artificial retinal devices
Artificial silicon retina (ASR)
Retinal implants
Retinal prostheses

The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available.

Federal and State law, as well as contract language, including definitions and specific contract provisions/exclusions, take precedence over Medical Policy and must be considered first in determining eligibility for coverage. The member’s contract benefits in effect on the date that services are rendered must be used. Medical Policy, which addresses medical efficacy, should be considered before utilizing medical opinion in adjudication. Medical technology is constantly evolving, and we reserve the right to review and update Medical Policy periodically.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.