2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.01.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental evaluation and computational modeling of tissue damage from low-flow push–pull perfusion sampling in vivo

Abstract: Background Neurochemical monitoring via sampling probes is valuable for deciphering neurotransmission in vivo. Microdialysis is commonly used; however, the spatial resolution is poor. New Method Recently push-pull perfusion at low flow rates (50 nL/min) has been proposed as a method for in vivo sampling from the central nervous system. Tissue damage from such probes has not been investigated in detail. In this work, we evaluated acute tissue response to low-flow push-pull perfusion by infusing the nuclear st… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is however even more specialized than microdialysis. Another push-pull technique was studied regarding possible tissue damage, with the conclusion that push-pull perfusion at low flow rates works well for sampling from brain, resulting in high temporal and spatial resolution, and that the probe insertion is what causes the tissue damage (99).…”
Section: Development Of Microdialysis and Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is however even more specialized than microdialysis. Another push-pull technique was studied regarding possible tissue damage, with the conclusion that push-pull perfusion at low flow rates works well for sampling from brain, resulting in high temporal and spatial resolution, and that the probe insertion is what causes the tissue damage (99).…”
Section: Development Of Microdialysis and Alternativesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attempts to modify this technology led to the development of push-pull probes (PPP), which enable faster analysis, but lower sensitivity and accuracy 26 . Compared to MD and SPME, PPPs and electrochemical methods guarantee better temporal resolution, although pushpull probes are still prone to capillary clogging 26,27 . Additionally, while electrochemical methods are able to return results in a few seconds, they only enable the analysis of selected substances, which may considerably reduce the scope of research 26,28 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others laser etch holes into existing catheters to simplify the fabrication process [38]. However, microperfusion probes require a secondary pull pump to ensure a zero net fluctuation of fluid from the probe into the interstitial space [33,34,39]. Open flow microperfusion (OFM) has been validated in several studies in human skeletal muscle [40], adipose tissue [40], and cerebral tissue (cOFM) [21], supporting the validity of the approach in vivo.…”
Section: Mwco-b Mw-amentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Factors that skew the collection of biomarkers due to tissue damage are the size [48,57], geometry [58], and rigidity [59] of the implanted probe. The volume of damaged tissue increases with the cross-sectional size of the probe [39]. The cross-sectional geometry of the probe also plays a role in the variety and population of collected biomarkers [58][59][60].…”
Section: Invasive Consequences Of Implantation and Biofoulingmentioning
confidence: 99%