Percutaneous Window Chamber Method for Chronic Intravital Microscopy of Sensor—Tissue Interactions
Open accessAbstract
Background: A dorsal, two-sided skin-fold window chamber model was employed previously by Gough in glucose sensor research to characterize poorly understood physiological factors affecting sensor performance. We have extended this work by developing a percutaneous one-sided window chamber model for the rodent dorsum that offers both a larger subcutaneous area and a less restrictive tissue space than previous animal models. Method: A surgical procedure for implanting a sensor into the subcutis beneath an acrylic window (15 mm diameter) is presented. Methods to quantify changes in the microvascular network and red blood cell perfusion around the sensors using noninvasive intravital microscopy and laser Doppler flowmetry are described. The feasibility of combining interstitial glucose monitoring from an implanted sensor with intravital fluorescence microscopy was explored using a bolus injection of fluorescein and dextrose to observe real-time mass transport of a small molecule at the sensor-tissue interface. Results: The percutaneous window chamber provides an excellent model for assessing the influence of different sensor modifications, such as surface morphologies, on neovascularization using real-time monitoring of the microvascular network and tissue perfusion. However, the tissue response to an implanted sensor was variable, and some sensors migrated entirely out of the field of view and could not be observed adequately. Conclusions: A percutaneous optical window provides direct, real-time images of the development and dynamics of microvascular networks, microvessel patency, and fibrotic encapsulation at the tissue—sensor interface. Additionally, observing microvessels following combined bolus injections of a fluorescent dye and glucose in the local sensor environment demonstrated a valuable technique to visualize mass transport at the sensor surface.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The optical tissue window enables tissue monitoring and correlation with sensor performance.
“The optical tissue window enables tissue monitoring and correlation to the sensor performance.116–118”
From Biocompatible Materials for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices (2013) · cites this paper as [118]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 9
- Authors
- Koschwanez, H. E., Klitzman, B., & Reichert, W. M.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reichert, W. Monty
- ORCID
- Klitzman, Bruce
- Venue
- Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 977-983
- ISSN
- 1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2769829
- OpenAlex
- W2088490674
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
- Keywords
- intravital microscopy, subcutaneous glucose sensor, microvascular networks, tissue perfusion, neovascularization, fibrotic encapsulation, mass transfer, fluorescein, D-glucose, laser Doppler flowmetry, implantable sensors
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