Cited by 54Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNerve injury and regenerationVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Behavioral and cellular consequences of high-electrode count utah arrays chronically implanted in rat sciatic nerve

Open access
Wark, H A C, Mathews, K S, Normann, R A, Fernandez, E·2014·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Before peripheral nerve electrodes can be used for the restoration of sensory and motor functions in patients with neurological disorders, the behavioral and histological consequences of these devices must be investigated. These indices of biocompatibility can be defined in terms of desired functional outcomes; for example, a device may be considered for use as a therapeutic intervention if the implanted subject retains functional neurons post-implantation even in the presence of a foreign body response. The consequences of an indwelling device may remain localized to cellular responses at the device-tissue interface, such as fibrotic encapsulation of the device, or they may affect the animal more globally, such as impacting behavioral or sensorimotor functions. The objective of this study was to investigate the overall consequences of implantation of high-electrode count intrafascicular peripheral nerve arrays, High Density Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays (HD-USEAs; 25 electrodes mm(-2)). APPROACH: HD-USEAs were implanted in rat sciatic nerves for one and two month periods. We monitored wheel running, noxious sensory paw withdrawal reflexes, footprints, nerve morphology and macrophage presence at the tissue-device interface. In addition, we used a novel approach to contain the arrays in actively behaving animals that consisted of an organic nerve wrap. A total of 500 electrodes were implanted across all ten animals. MAIN RESULTS: The results demonstrated that chronic implantation (⩽8 weeks) of HD-USEAs into peripheral nerves can evoke behavioral deficits that recover over time. Morphology of the nerve distal to the implantation site showed variable signs of nerve fiber degeneration and regeneration. Cytology adjacent to the device-tissue interface also showed a variable response, with some electrodes having many macrophages surrounding the electrodes, while other electrodes had few or no macrophages present. This variability was also seen along the length of the electrodes. Axons remained within the proximity of the electrode tips at the distances required for theoretically effective stimulation and recording (⩽100 μm). SIGNIFICANCE: We conclude from these studies that HD-USEAs do not cause overall global effects on the animals, at least up to the two-month period investigated here. These results demonstrate for the first time that the consequences of high-electrode count intrafascicular arrays compare with other peripheral nerve electrodes currently available for clinical or investigational neuromodulation.

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 · 10.1088/1741-2560/11/4/046027

Cites

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?

  • USEA longevity varies: some show no or little chronic damage up to 8 weeks and 7 months, while others show an inflammatory reaction after 1 year.

    “Some USEAs show no or little chronic damage to the nerve up to 8 weeks (Wark et al., 2014) and 7 months (Branner et al., 2004) after implantation. Others show that there is an inflammatory reaction present after 1 year of implantation (Christensen et al., 2014).”

    From Update on Peripheral Nerve Electrodes for Closed-Loop Neuroprosthetics (2018) · cites this paper as Wark et al., 2014

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50 · Cited by 54

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Christensen M B 2011 Doctoral Thesis: Evaluation of Inflammation and Morphometric Parameters Associated with Neural Device Implantation in the Sciatic Nerve (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah)

Authors
Wark, H. A. C., Mathews, K. S., Normann, R. A., & Fernandez, E.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2014-07-17
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
046027
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2029807432
Cited by
54
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1134545)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
  • Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Keywords
chronic implantation, sciatic nerve, biocompatibility, behavioral deficits, neuromodulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Axons, Behavior, Animal, Electrodes, Implanted, Foot, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Materials Testing, Nerve Fibers, Nerve Regeneration, Rats, Inbred WKY, Reflex, Running, Sciatic Nerve, Rats

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