Second Sight was founded to help persons with blindness and low vision through neurostimulation technology. They’re the developers of the Argus and Argus II retinal implants and the Orion brain implant. After encountering financial issues, Second Sight stopped providing support for these devices in 2020, meaning users whose devices fail—which some have already experienced—could lose the visual enhancement the devices provided without any way of getting help.
Lessons learned
When thinking about uncertainty in the context of medical technology, one might assume that startups and new technology are where the most apparent risks lie. Still, this situation is an example of how there can be risks with any medical implant.
Second Sight’s Argus II received FDA approval, and even with more than 20 years of experience, the company reached a point of being unable to provide support for its implants in a relatively short timeframe when considering that implants are not easily reversible and, thus, can have a lifelong impact.
Many implants—such as joint replacements or cochlear implants—are designed to last decades or a lifetime, constant developments are being made to increase their longevity, and they can typically be replaced if necessary. Even pacemakers—which will often require a battery replacement in less than a decade—are implanted with a plan for this.
So while any implant can fail, what has happened with Second Sight illustrates the additional risk that can come with highly-specialized, propriety implants. Without support, failure means these devices become entirely obsolete, leaving users without straightforward options for replacement or removal.
The promises of innovations are exciting, but individuals should keep the potential risks in mind when considering an implant, and developers and medical professionals should also communicate these risks clearly and honestly.
It may be impossible to guarantee any implant will be completely safe and future-proof, but how can the medical technology industry continue moving forward in a way that’s both innovative and responsible?
Communicate with patients
Establishing and maintaining strong communication with patients should be the top priority. Implants should be developed with solid input from prospective users about their needs and goals, and careful consideration should go into who will get enough benefit out of one for the risk to be worth it. Those considering implants should be educated on the associated risks and the support options available to them in the future.
Create contingency plans
Implant developers should have solid contingency plans to ensure that users of their devices can still receive safe, reliable support for their devices in the future, even if the company is no longer able to provide that support. While an individual does choose to accept the risk that comes with deciding to receive an implant, they should expect to receive reliable care meant to help mitigate that risk.
Support open-source technology
One of the most significant risk factors with proprietary technology is that it relies on the limited resources of the developer for support. If that developer becomes unable to provide support, users of the technology could lose access to an important tool or—in the case of an implant—be left with nonfunctional technology in their bodies.
Developing open-source medical software and hardware means that the technology can always be supported and improved upon. Since more people can contribute to open source technology it can often become more stable and robust.
Of course, the development of medical technology does require financial resources, so moving toward this approach would also require significant social investment.
The speed at which technology continues to advance is exciting, as are all the possibilities and innovations in medical technology. Failure is a natural part of this process. Still, unfortunately, it can have an immeasurable impact on human lives in the medical industry, making it all the more critical to develop medical devices with a human-centric, forward-thinking approach.
Comments