Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33937212›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021

Foreign Body Reaction to Implanted Biomaterials and Its Impact in Nerve Neuroprosthetics.

Alejandro Carnicer-Lombarte, Shao-Tuan Chen, George G Malliaras, Damiano G Barone

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 200 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
200citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
27.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

200 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 394 citations in OpenAlex.

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

140 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Alejandro Carnicer-LombarteElectrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Shao-Tuan ChenElectrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
George G MalliarasElectrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Damiano G BaroneElectrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The implantation of any foreign material into the body leads to the development of an inflammatory and fibrotic process-the foreign body reaction (FBR). Upon implantation into a tissue, cells of the immune system become attracted to the foreign material and attempt to degrade it. If this degradation fails, fibroblasts envelop the material and form a physical barrier to isolate it from the rest of the body. Long-term implantation of medical devices faces a great challenge presented by FBR, as the cellular response disrupts the interface between implant and its target tissue. This is particularly true for nerve neuroprosthetic implants-devices implanted into nerves to address conditions such as sensory loss, muscle paralysis, chronic pain, and epilepsy. Nerve neuroprosthetics rely on tight interfacing between nerve tissue and electrodes to detect the tiny electrical signals carried by axons, and/or electrically stimulate small subsets of axons within a nerve. Moreover, as advances in microfabrication drive the field to increasingly miniaturized nerve implants, the need for a stable, intimate implant-tissue interface is likely to quickly become a limiting factor for the development of new neuroprosthetic implant technologies. Here, we provide an overview of the material-cell interactions leading to the development of FBR. We review current nerve neuroprosthetic technologies (cuff, penetrating, and regenerative interfaces) and how long-term function of these is limited by FBR. Finally, we discuss how material properties (such as stiffness and size), pharmacological therapies, or use of biodegradable materials may be exploited to minimize FBR to nerve neuroprosthetic implants and improve their long-term stability.

Indexed as

biocompatibilityforeign body reactionnerve neuroprostheticsneural implantsneural interfaceperipheral nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID33937212
PMCPMC8081831
OpenAlexW3154658958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.