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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Martin Aman, Konstantin D. Bergmeister, Christopher Festin, Matthias E. Sporer, Michael Friedrich Russold, Clemens Gstoettner, Bruno K. Podesser, Alexander Gail, Dario Farina, Paul Cederna, Oskar C. Aszmann
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