Chronic response of adult rat brain tissue to implants anchored to the skull

Kim, Young Tae; Hitchcock, Robert W.; Bridge, M.J.; Tresco, Patrick A.

doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.09.010

Cited by 184 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the functionality of currently used NEs is limited due to the biological response that results from electrode implantation and their constant presence in the host tissue. [93][94][95] This chronic inflammation takes the form of glial scarring (Fig. 1C) which results in replacement of neuronal cells with glial cells, [96,97] loss of electrode function due to encapsulation, [93] and impediment to axonal re-growth.…”

Section: Inflammatory Response Of Neural Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…1C). [95,112] Technologically, manufacturing of smaller electrodes is possible; however, the materials used for making electrical pads on them (see Fig. 1B) do not provide sufficient charge injection capacity, interface impedance, or actual conductivity for successful reduction of NE dimensions.…”

Section: Inflammatory Response Of Neural Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resulting mechanical stresses on the cells at the tissue electrode interface stimulate reactive astrocytes, which perform immune functions in the CNS. [104,[108][109][110][111] The large mismatch between the mechanical properties of tissues and electrodes is the main contributor of mechanical stress and micromotions. [104,112] Damage to the neurovasculature caused during implantation is also believed to contribute to the inflammatory response [113,114] due, in part, to infiltrating immune cells and other non-local cellular elements such as cytokines.…”

Section: Inflammatory Response Of Neural Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nanomaterials for Neural Interfaces

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review focuses on the application of nanomaterials for neural interfacing. The junction between nanotechnology and neural tissues can be particularly worthy of scientific attention for several reasons: (i) Neural cells are electroactive, and the electronic properties of nanostructures can be tailored to match the charge transport requirements of electrical cellular interfacing. (ii) The unique mechanical and chemical properties of nanomaterials are critical for integration with neural tissue as long‐term implants. (iii) Solutions to many critical problems in neural biology/medicine are limited by the availability of specialized materials. (iv) Neuronal stimulation is needed for a variety of common and severe health problems. This confluence of need, accumulated expertise, and potential impact on the well‐being of people suggests the potential of nanomaterials to revolutionize the field of neural interfacing. In this review, we begin with foundational topics, such as the current status of neural electrode (NE) technology, the key challenges facing the practical utilization of NEs, and the potential advantages of nanostructures as components of chronic implants. After that the detailed account of toxicology and biocompatibility of nanomaterials in respect to neural tissues is given. Next, we cover a variety of specific applications of nanoengineered devices, including drug delivery, imaging, topographic patterning, electrode design, nanoscale transistors for high‐resolution neural interfacing, and photoactivated interfaces. We also critically evaluate the specific properties of particular nanomaterials—including nanoparticles, nanowires, and carbon nanotubes—that can be taken advantage of in neuroprosthetic devices. The most promising future areas of research and practical device engineering are discussed as a conclusion to the review.

show abstract

Section: Inflammatory Response Of Neural Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Inflammatory Response Of Neural Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inflammatory Response Of Neural Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nanomaterials for Neural Interfaces

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15,19 Such studies have revealed two important phenomena: (1) the formation of a dense encapsulating scar, which eventually encapsulates the electrodes, regardless of the materials used; and (2) the formation of a neuron-free dead zone surrounding the implants. 3,15,[21][22][23] Numerous factors are thought to contribute to scar formation, including the mechanical properties mismatch between stiff electrodes and the soft cortical tissue, [24][25][26] and a localized neurotoxic environment created by the presence of a non-removable foreign object. [22][23][24] The aim of this article is to summarize the different approaches to stabilize the neural electrode/brain interface by focusing on the mechanical mismatch of the implant and tissue, and, as an example, highlight recent work on mechanically adaptive nanocomposites for neural interfacing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanically adaptive nanocomposites for neural interfacing

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[12,13] The foreign material may be encapsulated by microglia, astrocytes, endothelia, fibroblasts, or depending on the place of implantation, and elicits a wound healing / encapsulation response. These encapsulating cells and extracellular matrix shield the electrode from the tissue of interest [14] and limit the functionality of implanted biosensor devices e.g. glucose sensors [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of small pulsed nanocurrents on cell viability in vitro and in vivo: Implications for biomedical electrodes

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 AbstractUsing a custom-built, implantable pulse generator, we studied the effects of small pulsed currents on the viability on rat aortic-derived cells (RAOC) in vitro. The pulsed currents (0.37 A/m 2 ) underwent apoptosis within 24 h as shown by the positive staining for cleaved caspase-3 and classically apoptotic morphology. Based on these findings, we examined the effects of nanocurrents in vivo. The pulse generator was implanted subcutaneously in the rat model. The electrode|tissue interface histology revealed no difference between the active platinum surface and the neighboring control surface, however we found a large difference between electrodes that were functional during the entire experiment and non-active electrodes. These non-active electrodes showed an increase in impedance at higher frequencies 21 days post-implantation, whereas working electrodes retained their impedance value for the entire experiment. These results indicate that applied currents can reduce the impedance of implanted electrodes.

show abstract

Chronic response of adult rat brain tissue to implants anchored to the skull

Cited by 184 publications

References 35 publications

Nanomaterials for Neural Interfaces

Nanomaterials for Neural Interfaces

Mechanically adaptive nanocomposites for neural interfacing

Effects of small pulsed nanocurrents on cell viability in vitro and in vivo: Implications for biomedical electrodes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About