Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34955740›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

The Safety of Micro-Implants for the Brain.

Abdel-Hameed Dabbour, Sheryl Tan, Sang Ho Kim, Sarah-Jane Guild, Peter Heppner, Daniel McCormick, Bryon E Wright, Dixon Leung, Robert Gallichan, David Budgett and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abdel-Hameed DabbourAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sheryl TanCentre for Brain Research, Department of Anatomy and Medical Imaging, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sang Ho KimAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sarah-Jane GuildAuckland Bioengineering Institute, Department of Physiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter HeppnerAuckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.
Daniel McCormickAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bryon E WrightAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Dixon LeungAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Robert GallichanAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
David BudgettAuckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Simon C MalpasAuckland Bioengineering Institute, Department of Physiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
University of Auckland · NZAuckland District Health Board · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technological advancements in electronics and micromachining now allow the development of discrete wireless brain implantable micro-devices. Applications of such devices include stimulation or sensing and could enable direct placement near regions of interest within the brain without the need for electrode leads or separate battery compartments that are at increased risk of breakage and infection. Clinical use of leadless brain implants is accompanied by novel risks, such as migration of the implant. Additionally, the encapsulation material of the implants plays an important role in mitigating unwanted tissue reactions. These risks have the potential to cause harm or reduce the service of life of the implant. In the present study, we have assessed post-implantation tissue reaction and migration of borosilicate glass-encapsulated micro-implants within the cortex of the brain. Twenty borosilicate glass-encapsulated devices (2 × 3.5 × 20 mm) were implanted into the parenchyma of 10 sheep for 6 months. Radiographs were taken directly post-surgery and at 3 and 6 months. Subsequently, sheep were euthanized, and GFAP and IBA-1 histological analysis was performed. The migration of the implants was tracked by reference to two stainless steel screws placed in the skull. We found no significant difference in fluoroscopy intensity of GFAP and a small difference in IBA-1 between implanted tissue and control. There was no glial scar formation found at the site of the implant's track wall. Furthermore, we observed movement of up to 4.6 mm in a subset of implants in the first 3 months of implantation and no movement in any implant during the 3-6-month period of implantation. Subsequent histological analysis revealed no evidence of a migration track or tissue damage. We conclude that the implantation of this discrete micro-implant within the brain does not present additional risk due to migration.

Indexed as

brain implantimplant migrationmicrodevicemicro-implantmicro-implant GFAPmicro-implant IBA-1micro-implant safety

Identifiers

PMID34955740
PMCPMC8695845
OpenAlexW4200116573

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.