Fernando Casanova1, Paul R Carney2, Malisa Sarntinoranont3. 1. Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Escuela de Ingeniería Mecánica, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Neurology, Neuroscience, and J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering, Wilder Center of Excellence for Epilepsy Research, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: msarnt@ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Convection enhanced delivery (CED) infuses drugs directly into brain tissue. Needle insertion is required and results in tissue damage which can promote flowback along the needle track and improper targeting. The goal of this study was to evaluate friction stress (calculated from needle insertion force) as a measure of tissue contact and damage during needle insertion for varying insertion speeds. NEW METHOD: Forces and surface dimpling during needle insertion were measured in rat brain in vivo. Needle retraction forces were used to calculate friction stresses. These measures were compared to track damage from a previous study. Differences between brain tissues and soft hydrogels were evaluated for varying insertion speeds: 0.2, 2, and 10mm/s. RESULTS: In brain tissue, average insertion force and surface dimpling increased with increasing insertion speed. Average friction stress along the needle-tissue interface decreased with insertion speed (from 0.58 ± 0.27 to 0.16 ± 0.08 kPa). Friction stress varied between brain regions: cortex (0.227 ± 0.27 kPa), external capsule (0.222 ± 0.19 kPa), and CPu (0.383 ± 0.30 kPa). Hydrogels exhibited opposite trends for dimpling and friction stress with insertion speed. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Previously, increasing needle damage with insertion speed has been measured with histological methods. Friction stress appears to decrease with increasing tissue damage and decreasing tissue contact, providing the potential for in vivo and real time evaluation along the needle track. CONCLUSION: Force derived friction stress decreased with increasing insertion speed and was smaller within white matter regions. Hydrogels exhibited opposite trends to brain tissue.
BACKGROUND: Convection enhanced delivery (CED) infuses drugs directly into brain tissue. Needle insertion is required and results in tissue damage which can promote flowback along the needle track and improper targeting. The goal of this study was to evaluate friction stress (calculated from needle insertion force) as a measure of tissue contact and damage during needle insertion for varying insertion speeds. NEW METHOD: Forces and surface dimpling during needle insertion were measured in rat brain in vivo. Needle retraction forces were used to calculate friction stresses. These measures were compared to track damage from a previous study. Differences between brain tissues and soft hydrogels were evaluated for varying insertion speeds: 0.2, 2, and 10mm/s. RESULTS: In brain tissue, average insertion force and surface dimpling increased with increasing insertion speed. Average friction stress along the needle-tissue interface decreased with insertion speed (from 0.58 ± 0.27 to 0.16 ± 0.08 kPa). Friction stress varied between brain regions: cortex (0.227 ± 0.27 kPa), external capsule (0.222 ± 0.19 kPa), and CPu (0.383 ± 0.30 kPa). Hydrogels exhibited opposite trends for dimpling and friction stress with insertion speed. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Previously, increasing needle damage with insertion speed has been measured with histological methods. Friction stress appears to decrease with increasing tissue damage and decreasing tissue contact, providing the potential for in vivo and real time evaluation along the needle track. CONCLUSION: Force derived friction stress decreased with increasing insertion speed and was smaller within white matter regions. Hydrogels exhibited opposite trends to brain tissue.
Authors: Kathryn H Rosenbluth; Matthias Luz; Erich Mohr; Stephan Mittermeyer; John Bringas; Krystof S Bankiewicz Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2010-12-25 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: C S Bjornsson; S J Oh; Y A Al-Kofahi; Y J Lim; K L Smith; J N Turner; S De; B Roysam; W Shain; S J Kim Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2006-06-21 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: R H Bobo; D W Laske; A Akbasak; P F Morrison; R L Dedrick; E H Oldfield Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-03-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: John H Sampson; Gary Archer; Christoph Pedain; Eva Wembacher-Schröder; Manfred Westphal; Sandeep Kunwar; Michael A Vogelbaum; April Coan; James E Herndon; Raghu Raghavan; Martin L Brady; David A Reardon; Allan H Friedman; Henry S Friedman; M Inmaculada Rodríguez-Ponce; Susan M Chang; Stephan Mittermeyer; David Croteau; Raj K Puri Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Steven M Wellman; James R Eles; Kip A Ludwig; John P Seymour; Nicholas J Michelson; William E McFadden; Alberto L Vazquez; Takashi D Y Kozai Journal: Adv Funct Mater Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 18.808
Authors: Robert Morhard; Jenna L Mueller; Qishun Tang; Corrine Nief; Erika Chelales; Christopher T Lam; Daniel Adrianzen Alvarez; Michael Rubinstein; David F Katz; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Negar Geramifard; Behnoush Dousti; Christopher Nguyen; Justin Abbott; Stuart F Cogan; Victor D Varner Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 5.043