Cited by 13Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringWireless Body Area NetworksOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

The safety of Micro-implants for the brain

Open access
Dabbour, Abdel-Hameed, Tan, Sheryl, Kim, Sang Ho, Guild, Sarah-Jane, Heppner, Peter, McCormick, Daniel, Wright, Bryon E., Leung, Dixon +3 more·2021·Frontiers in Neuroscience

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.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2021.796203

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • One study achieved an implant density about twice that of brain tissue without adverse tissue reactions or migration.

    “for instance, one study achieved a density about twice that of brain tissue without adverse tissue reactions or migration (Dabbour et al., 2021).”

    From Comparative analysis of energy transfer mechanisms for neural implants (2024) · cites this paper as Dabbour et al., 2021

    The Materials and Methods section says the implants’ density was approximately twice that of brain tissue. But the Results report movement of 2.5–4.4 mm in six of twenty implants during the first three months, and the Discussion reports a modest, statistically significant microglial response. Thus, the claim’s unqualified assertion of no migration or adverse tissue reaction overstates the findings. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Negrotto M. Figueroa R. Sotomayor K. (2019). Multidirectional spontaneous migration of intracranial bullet: a case report and literature review. Neurosurg. Cases Rev. 2: 019. 10.23937/2643-4474/1710019 1710019 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dabbour, A.-H., Tan, S., Kim, S. H., Guild, S.-J., Heppner, P., McCormick, D., Wright, B. E., Leung, D., Gallichan, R., Budgett, D., & Malpas, S. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Auckland District Health Board (NZ)
Corresponding author
Malpas, Simon C.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2021-12-09
Volume
15
Pages
796203-796203
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200116573
Cited by
13
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Cure Kids
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Wireless Body Area Networks
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
neural implants, implant migration, tissue reaction, glial scar, glial fibrillary acidic protein, Iba1, sheep model, implant safety

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