Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations
Introduction: Man-machine interfacing remains the main challenge for accurate and reliable control of bionic prostheses. Implantable electrodes in nerves and muscles may overcome some of the limitations by significantly increasing the interface's reliability and bandwidth. Before human applicat...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020-01-01
|
Series: | Frontiers in Neuroscience |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2019.01442/full |
id |
doaj-e3d8c9f29ba24d3b9d9187e2939264fc |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Martin Aman Martin Aman Konstantin D. Bergmeister Konstantin D. Bergmeister Christopher Festin Matthias E. Sporer Matthias E. Sporer Michael Friedrich Russold Clemens Gstoettner Bruno K. Podesser Alexander Gail Dario Farina Paul Cederna Oskar C. Aszmann Oskar C. Aszmann |
spellingShingle |
Martin Aman Martin Aman Konstantin D. Bergmeister Konstantin D. Bergmeister Christopher Festin Matthias E. Sporer Matthias E. Sporer Michael Friedrich Russold Clemens Gstoettner Bruno K. Podesser Alexander Gail Dario Farina Paul Cederna Oskar C. Aszmann Oskar C. Aszmann Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations Frontiers in Neuroscience bionic prostheses interface animal model testing electrode animal |
author_facet |
Martin Aman Martin Aman Konstantin D. Bergmeister Konstantin D. Bergmeister Christopher Festin Matthias E. Sporer Matthias E. Sporer Michael Friedrich Russold Clemens Gstoettner Bruno K. Podesser Alexander Gail Dario Farina Paul Cederna Oskar C. Aszmann Oskar C. Aszmann |
author_sort |
Martin Aman |
title |
Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations |
title_short |
Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations |
title_full |
Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations |
title_fullStr |
Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations |
title_full_unstemmed |
Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations |
title_sort |
experimental testing of bionic peripheral nerve and muscle interfaces: animal model considerations |
publisher |
Frontiers Media S.A. |
series |
Frontiers in Neuroscience |
issn |
1662-453X |
publishDate |
2020-01-01 |
description |
Introduction: Man-machine interfacing remains the main challenge for accurate and reliable control of bionic prostheses. Implantable electrodes in nerves and muscles may overcome some of the limitations by significantly increasing the interface's reliability and bandwidth. Before human application, experimental preclinical testing is essential to assess chronic in-vivo biocompatibility and functionality. Here, we analyze available animal models, their costs and ethical challenges in special regards to simulating a potentially life-long application in a short period of time and in non-biped animals.Methods: We performed a literature analysis following the PRISMA guidelines including all animal models used to record neural or muscular activity via implantable electrodes, evaluating animal models, group size, duration, origin of publication as well as type of interface. Furthermore, behavioral, ethical, and economic considerations of these models were analyzed. Additionally, we discuss experience and surgical approaches with rat, sheep, and primate models and an approach for international standardized testing.Results: Overall, 343 studies matched the search terms, dominantly originating from the US (55%) and Europe (34%), using mainly small animal models (rat: 40%). Electrode placement was dominantly neural (77%) compared to muscular (23%). Large animal models had a mean duration of 135 ± 87.2 days, with a mean of 5.3 ± 3.4 animals per trial. Small animal models had a mean duration of 85 ± 11.2 days, with a mean of 12.4 ± 1.7 animals.Discussion: Only 37% animal models were by definition chronic tests (>3 months) and thus potentially provide information on long-term performance. Costs for large animals were up to 45 times higher than small animals. However, costs are relatively small compared to complication costs in human long-term applications. Overall, we believe a combination of small animals for preliminary primary electrode testing and large animals to investigate long-term biocompatibility, impedance, and tissue regeneration parameters provides sufficient data to ensure long-term human applications. |
topic |
bionic prostheses interface animal model testing electrode animal |
url |
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2019.01442/full |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT martinaman experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT martinaman experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT konstantindbergmeister experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT konstantindbergmeister experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT christopherfestin experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT matthiasesporer experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT matthiasesporer experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT michaelfriedrichrussold experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT clemensgstoettner experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT brunokpodesser experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT alexandergail experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT dariofarina experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT paulcederna experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT oskarcaszmann experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations AT oskarcaszmann experimentaltestingofbionicperipheralnerveandmuscleinterfacesanimalmodelconsiderations |
_version_ |
1725273820543057920 |
spelling |
doaj-e3d8c9f29ba24d3b9d9187e2939264fc2020-11-25T00:44:43ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Neuroscience1662-453X2020-01-011310.3389/fnins.2019.01442489962Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model ConsiderationsMartin Aman0Martin Aman1Konstantin D. Bergmeister2Konstantin D. Bergmeister3Christopher Festin4Matthias E. Sporer5Matthias E. Sporer6Michael Friedrich Russold7Clemens Gstoettner8Bruno K. Podesser9Alexander Gail10Dario Farina11Paul Cederna12Oskar C. Aszmann13Oskar C. Aszmann14Clinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaDivision of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaDivision of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaDivision of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaOtto Bock Healthcare Products GmbH, Vienna, AustriaClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaDivision of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaCognitive Neuroscience Lab, German Primate Center, Göttingen, GermanyDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College, London, United KingdomSection of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United StatesClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaIntroduction: Man-machine interfacing remains the main challenge for accurate and reliable control of bionic prostheses. Implantable electrodes in nerves and muscles may overcome some of the limitations by significantly increasing the interface's reliability and bandwidth. Before human application, experimental preclinical testing is essential to assess chronic in-vivo biocompatibility and functionality. Here, we analyze available animal models, their costs and ethical challenges in special regards to simulating a potentially life-long application in a short period of time and in non-biped animals.Methods: We performed a literature analysis following the PRISMA guidelines including all animal models used to record neural or muscular activity via implantable electrodes, evaluating animal models, group size, duration, origin of publication as well as type of interface. Furthermore, behavioral, ethical, and economic considerations of these models were analyzed. Additionally, we discuss experience and surgical approaches with rat, sheep, and primate models and an approach for international standardized testing.Results: Overall, 343 studies matched the search terms, dominantly originating from the US (55%) and Europe (34%), using mainly small animal models (rat: 40%). Electrode placement was dominantly neural (77%) compared to muscular (23%). Large animal models had a mean duration of 135 ± 87.2 days, with a mean of 5.3 ± 3.4 animals per trial. Small animal models had a mean duration of 85 ± 11.2 days, with a mean of 12.4 ± 1.7 animals.Discussion: Only 37% animal models were by definition chronic tests (>3 months) and thus potentially provide information on long-term performance. Costs for large animals were up to 45 times higher than small animals. However, costs are relatively small compared to complication costs in human long-term applications. Overall, we believe a combination of small animals for preliminary primary electrode testing and large animals to investigate long-term biocompatibility, impedance, and tissue regeneration parameters provides sufficient data to ensure long-term human applications.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2019.01442/fullbionic prosthesesinterfaceanimal modeltestingelectrodeanimal |