1) I'm afraid this looks highly experimental.  The animal experimenters in the review paper are basically just seeing some level of shaky persistence of the transplanted cells in the tissue, with some up and down regulation of some marker genes, but no obvious functional participation. 

And if you think about it... why would a bone marrow cell do something useful when transplanted into the eye?  Just because someone skilled in propaganda called it a "stem cell" doesn't mean that it can magically figure out what it's supposed to do in this totally unnatural context.  And the results clearly show that it doesn't.  Like the authors say, there could be a future in this field, if someone found the correct source of cells to use, but at the time of writing, this clearly hadn't happened.  

2) For the neonate case, you've got to ask, what is the rate of spontaneous improvement?  If it's greater than absolute zero, then one person who experiences spontaneous improvement would be quite likely go on vimeo, even if they're not getting paid to do it.  With an N = 1, and in the absence of any kind of mechanistic study, there is nothing in this result that can differentiate the "treatment success" from spontaneous improvement.  Even if it's all true literally as reported, the null hypothesis must be that the lucky child improved spontaneously, and the therapy did nothing to change that.  Unfortunately (or, in the long run, fortunately), in science, the null hypothesis is usually true. 

3) I think you're right to keep watching the field...  In particular, I would search for people who do more than move a so-called "stem cell" (which would really have been called a plain old regular cell 10 years ago) from one place in the body to another and hope for a miracle.  Instead, perhaps someone can actually try to produce some semblance of the specific cell types that are actually damaged / missing in ROP.   And then they need to do mechanistic studies -- just like the ones in the paper, except with a different result, showing convincing functional integration into the tissue, in close temporal and causative relationship with functional improvement.  

Stem cell transplantation is still very experimental in humans and for eye-related diseases I imagine there is very little being done in case of humans. There is one clinical trial going on in Japan. Here is the link. You can try contacting the officials over there.

http://www.nature.com/news/japanese-woman-is-first-recipient-of-next-generation-stem-cells-1.15915

Mainly animal models you mention there. I think we should have a look at the results of the clinical trial when they are out. Good luck and do not give up.