Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25605679›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2015

Chronic tissue response to untethered microelectrode implants in the rat brain and spinal cord.

Ali Ersen, Stella Elkabes, David S Freedman, Mesut Sahin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ali ErsenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Stella Elkabes
David S Freedman
Mesut Sahin
New Jersey Institute of Technology · USBoston University · USNeurological Surgery · US

Funding

Floating Light Activated Micro-Electrical Stimulators for Neural ProstheticsR01EB009100 · NIBIB · NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI SAHIN, MESUT · 2009 to 2012
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB009100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMicroelectrodes implanted in the central nervous system (CNS) often fail in long term implants due to the immunological tissue response caused by tethering forces of the connecting wires. In addition to the tethering effect, there is a mechanical stress that occurs at the device-tissue interface simply because the microelectrode is a rigid body floating in soft tissue and it cannot reshape itself to comply with changes in the surrounding tissue. In the current study we evaluated the scar tissue formation to tetherless devices with two significantly different geometries in the rat brain and spinal cord in order to investigate the effects of device geometry. APPROACH: One of the implant geometries resembled the wireless, floating microstimulators that we are currently developing in our laboratory and the other was a (shank only) Michigan probe for comparison. Both electrodes were implanted into either the cervical spinal cord or the motor cortices, one on each side. MAIN

resultsThe most pronounced astroglial and microglial reactions occurred within 20 μm from the device and decreased sharply at larger distances. Both cell types displayed the morphology of non-activated cells past the 100 μm perimeter. Even though the aspect ratios of the implants were different, the astroglial and microglial responses to both microelectrode types were very mild in the brain, stronger and yet limited in the spinal cord. SIGNIFICANCE: These observations confirm previous reports and further suggest that tethering may be responsible for most of the tissue response in chronic implants and that the electrode size has a smaller contribution with floating electrodes. The electrode size may be playing primarily an amplifying role to the tethering forces in the brain whereas the size itself may induce chronic response in the spinal cord where the movement of surrounding tissues is more significant.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainElectric StimulationElectrodes, ImplantedEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisInflammationMaleMicroelectrodesMonitoring, AmbulatoryRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySpinal Cord

Identifiers

PMID25605679
PMCPMC4317289
OpenAlexW2118685070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.