Grant H Mulliken1, Narcisse P Bichot2, Azriel Ghadooshahy2, Jitendra Sharma3, Simon Kornblith4, Michael Philcock5, Robert Desimone2. 1. McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States. Electronic address: grantm@mit.edu. 2. McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States. 3. Picower Center for Learning and Memory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States; Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, MIT; Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital and Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02129, United States. 4. Picower Center for Learning and Memory at MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States. 5. AnalyzeDirect Inc., Overland Park, KS 66085, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recording and manipulating neural activity in awake behaving animal models requires long-term implantation of cranial implants that must address a variety of design considerations, which include preventing infection, minimizing tissue damage, mechanical strength of the implant, and MRI compatibility. NEW METHOD: Here we address these issues by designing legless, custom-fit cranial implants using structural MRI-based reconstruction of the skull and that are made from carbon-reinforced PEEK. RESULTS: We report several novel custom-fit radiolucent implant designs, which include a legless recording chamber, a legless stimulation chamber, a multi-channel microdrive and a head post. The fit to the skull was excellent in all cases, with no visible gaps between the base of the implants and the skull. The wound margin was minimal in size and showed no sign of infection or skin recession. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Cranial implants used for neurophysiological investigation in awake behaving animals often employ methyl methacrylate (MMA) to serve as a bonding agent to secure the implant to the skull. Other designs rely on radially extending legs to secure the implant. Both of these methods have significant drawbacks. MMA is toxic to bone and frequently leads to infection while radially extending legs cause the skin to recede away from the implant, ultimately exposing bone and proliferating granulation tissue. CONCLUSIONS: These radiolucent implants constitute a set of technologies suitable for reliable long-term recording, which minimize infection and tissue damage.
BACKGROUND: Recording and manipulating neural activity in awake behaving animal models requires long-term implantation of cranial implants that must address a variety of design considerations, which include preventing infection, minimizing tissue damage, mechanical strength of the implant, and MRI compatibility. NEW METHOD: Here we address these issues by designing legless, custom-fit cranial implants using structural MRI-based reconstruction of the skull and that are made from carbon-reinforced PEEK. RESULTS: We report several novel custom-fit radiolucent implant designs, which include a legless recording chamber, a legless stimulation chamber, a multi-channel microdrive and a head post. The fit to the skull was excellent in all cases, with no visible gaps between the base of the implants and the skull. The wound margin was minimal in size and showed no sign of infection or skin recession. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Cranial implants used for neurophysiological investigation in awake behaving animals often employ methyl methacrylate (MMA) to serve as a bonding agent to secure the implant to the skull. Other designs rely on radially extending legs to secure the implant. Both of these methods have significant drawbacks. MMA is toxic to bone and frequently leads to infection while radially extending legs cause the skin to recede away from the implant, ultimately exposing bone and proliferating granulation tissue. CONCLUSIONS: These radiolucent implants constitute a set of technologies suitable for reliable long-term recording, which minimize infection and tissue damage.
Authors: Jorge G Cham; Edward A Branchaud; Zoran Nenadic; Bradley Greger; Richard A Andersen; Joel W Burdick Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2004-06-30 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: B E Pfingst; T Albrektsson; A Tjellström; J M Miller; J Zappia; X L Xue; F Weiser Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Coralie de Hemptinne; Elena S Ryapolova-Webb; Ellen L Air; Paul A Garcia; Kai J Miller; Jeffrey G Ojemann; Jill L Ostrem; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Philip A Starr Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jacqueline A Overton; Dylan F Cooke; Adam B Goldring; Steven A Lucero; Conor Weatherford; Gregg H Recanzone Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Michael Ortiz-Rios; Marcus Haag; Fabien Balezeau; Stephen Frey; Alex Thiele; Kathy Murphy; Michael Christoph Schmid Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2018-09-16 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: M A Basso; S Frey; K A Guerriero; B Jarraya; S Kastner; K W Koyano; D A Leopold; K Murphy; C Poirier; W Pope; A C Silva; G Tansey; L Uhrig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: André M Bastos; Mikael Lundqvist; Ayan S Waite; Nancy Kopell; Earl K Miller Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Xing Chen; Jessy K Possel; Catherine Wacongne; Anne F van Ham; P Christiaan Klink; Pieter R Roelfsema Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 2.390