Neural Interface Engineering 2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-41854-0_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Failure Modes of Implanted Neural Interfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 187 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, this sample only represents those manufacturers who have reported device failures and, unsurprisingly, most reported failures included minimal information about the cause. The results in Table 4 are similar to those found in searches which considered a broader range of clinical applications [22,140]. Increased fibrous tissue and macrophage response [118].…”
Section: Failure Modessupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, this sample only represents those manufacturers who have reported device failures and, unsurprisingly, most reported failures included minimal information about the cause. The results in Table 4 are similar to those found in searches which considered a broader range of clinical applications [22,140]. Increased fibrous tissue and macrophage response [118].…”
Section: Failure Modessupporting
confidence: 79%
“…To complicate matters further, electrodes need to be thin enough to remain flexible while maintaining mechanical stability upon implantation. As a result, the electrode design is crucial, providing the physical interface between the biological neural tissue and the implanted electronics [22]; this has led to a plethora of new materials being developed for electrode fabrication [23,24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mechanical mismatch between the implant (Young's modulus 50-200 GPa) and the soft tissue (Young's modulus 0.2-15 kPa) may evoke an immune response, tissue scarring or trauma induced by implant placement or micromotion of the implant, and may explain electrode degradation and reduced stimulation efficacy over time (78)(79)(80)(81)(82). Moreover, poor implant-tissue adhesion, vascular damage, inflammation, electrode failure, and foreign body response can be linked with device rigidity and may lead to acute and chronic responses and electrode failure (83)(84)(85)(86).…”
Section: Flexibility and Substrate Stiffnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…additionally criticized the lack of reported failures in current publications as they correctly deemed it vital for preventing repetition of the same mistakes in the future. [ 169 ]…”
Section: Tools To Enhance Long‐term Stability and Biocompatibility Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[131] Delbeke et al additionally criticized the lack of reported failures in current publications as they correctly deemed it vital for preventing repetition of the same mistakes in the future. [169] In proof-of-concept studies several exciting new approaches were tested to address the aforementioned issues: 1) Tissue disruption and encapsulation could be minimized by using biohybrid devices in which cultured neurons or muscle cells are used as an intermediary between the target tissue and the electronic device ( Figure 9D,iii). Several biohybrid approaches have been tested already in vivo in which cultured muscle cells [134] or neurons [170,171] are used as a relay to connect to the nervous system.…”
Section: Tools To Enhance Long-term Stability and Biocompatibility Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%