Cited by 18Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNerve injury and regenerationTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

In vivo testing of a 3D bifurcating microchannel scaffold inducing separation of regenerating axon bundles in peripheral nerves

Open access
Stoyanova, Irina I, van Wezel, Richard J A, Rutten, Wim L C·2013·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

Artificial nerve guidance channels enhance the regenerative effectiveness in an injured peripheral nerve but the existing design so far has been limited to basic straight tubes simply guiding the growth to bridge the gap. Hence, one of the goals in development of more effective neuroprostheses is to create bidirectional highly selective neuro-electronic interface between a prosthetic device and the severed nerve. A step towards improving selectivity for both recording and stimulation have been made with some recent in vitro studies which showed that three-dimensional (3D) bifurcating microchannels can separate neurites growing on a planar surface and bring them into contact with individual electrodes. Since the growing axons in vivo have the innate tendency to group in bundles surrounded by connective tissue, one of the big challenges in neuro-prosthetic interface design is how to overcome it. Therefore, we performed experiments with 3D bifurcating guidance scaffolds implanted in the sciatic nerve of rats to test if this new channel architecture could trigger separation pattern of ingrowth also in vivo. Our results showed that this new method enabled the re-growth of neurites into channels with gradually diminished width (80, 40 and 20 µm) and facilitated the separation of the axonal bundles with 91% success. It seems that the 3D bifurcating scaffold might contribute towards conveying detailed neural control and sensory feedback to users of prosthetic devices, and thus could improve the quality of their daily life.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2560/10/6/066018

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cuff electrodes can be inserted into the gap of a nerve lesion and the nerve allowed to grow through it, rather than wrapping the cuff around a healthy nerve.

    “Cuff electrodes can be inserted into the gap of a nerve lesion and the nerve allowed to grow through it, rather than wrapping the cuff around a healthy nerve (Lotfi et al., 2011; Stoyanova et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2015).”

    From Foreign Body Reaction to Implanted Biomaterials and Its Impact in Nerve Neuroprosthetics (2021) · cites this paper as Stoyanova et al., 2013

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says axons can regenerate through an electrode structure placed at a sectioned nerve, supporting the grow-through approach. But it identifies those devices as regenerative or sieve electrodes and distinguishes them from cuff electrodes, which it describes as extraneural devices used on intact nerves. It does not support calling the device inserted at the lesion a cuff electrode. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Stoyanova et al. 3D bifurcating electrode arrays showed promise in facilitating bifurcation of large regenerated fascicles into smaller, almost singularly separated axonal fibers in vivo.

    “When tested in vivo, these electrode arrays showed promise in facilitating bifurcation of large regenerated fascicles into smaller (almost singularly) separated axonal fibers”

    From Regenerative Electrode Interfaces for Neural Prostheses. (2016) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Results and Discussion report that the implanted 3D bifurcating scaffold separated regenerating axonal bundles in vivo, with 91% separation into secondary channels. But the paper describes an implanted microchannel scaffold, not an electrode array, and presents contact with single axons or small groups as a future possibility rather than an observed outcome (Discussion; page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Regenerated fibers in the Stoyanova arrays contained both myelinated and unmyelinated fibers of varying diameter, suggesting the possible presence of motor, autonomic, and sensory neurites.

    “These regenerated fibers contained both myelinated and unmyelinated fibers of varying diameter, which suggests the possible presence of motor, autonomic, and sensory neurites.”

    From Regenerative Electrode Interfaces for Neural Prostheses. (2016) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Microchannel-based devices guide regenerating axons and parcel outgrowth toward distinct target locations.

    “Microchannel-based devices guide regenerating axons and parcel outgrowth toward distinct target locations.”

    From Regenerative Electrode Interfaces for Neural Prostheses. (2016) · cites this paper as [35]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stoyanova, I. I., van Wezel, R. J. A., & Rutten, W. L. C.
Affiliations
University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Stoyanova, Irina I
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2013-11-27
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
066018
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2167986300
Cited by
18
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Radboud Universiteit
  • University of Twente
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
peripheral nerve regeneration, nerve guidance channels, sciatic nerve, in vivo implantation
MeSH terms
Animals, Axons, Female, Microelectrodes, Nerve Regeneration, Organ Culture Techniques, Peripheral Nerves, Sciatic Nerve, Rats, Wistar, Rats, Tissue Scaffolds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review