| Literature DB >> 29317748 |
Andrew J Shoffstall1,2, Suraj Srinivasan1,2, Mitchell Willis1,2, Allison M Stiller3, Melanie Ecker4,5, Walter E Voit3,4,6,5, Joseph J Pancrazio3,4,5, Jeffrey R Capadona7,8.
Abstract
Mosquitos are among the deadliest insects on the planet due to their ability to transmit diseases like malaria through their bite. In order to bite, a mosquito must insert a set of micro-sized needles through the skin to reach vascular structures. The mosquito uses a combination of mechanisms including an insertion guide to enable it to bite and feed off of larger animals. Here, we report on a biomimetic strategy inspired by the mosquito insertion guide to enable the implantation of intracortical microelectrodes into the brain. Next generation microelectrode designs leveraging ultra-small dimensions and/or flexible materials offer the promise of increased performance, but present difficulties in reliable implantation. With the biomimetic guide in place, the rate of successful microprobe insertion increased from 37.5% to 100% due to the rise in the critical buckling force of the microprobes by 3.8-fold. The prototype guides presented here provide a reproducible method to augment the insertion of small, flexible devices into the brain. In the future, similar approaches may be considered and applied to the insertion of other difficult to implant medical devices.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29317748 PMCID: PMC5760625 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18522-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Mosquito-inspired guide to reduce buckling of flexible microelectrodes during insertion into brain tissue. Mosquitos use their labium (labeled above) to brace the fascicle during insertion through the tough skin. Mechanically, this changes the end-condition of the fascicle from a free- to a fixed-end condition and reduces the effective length. Similarly, our manufactured guide may be placed on the skull above the site of device implantation. A narrow slit, slightly wider than the microelectrode provides lateral support. The additional bracing prevents buckling. Figure was prepared by Erika Woodrum of the Cleveland FES Center, a contributor, with permission granted for use.
Figure 2Mechanical testing of guide. (A) Illustration showing testing rig setup. Rectangular tests strips (n = 9) were placed in grips one side with a flat plate and force transducer opposing it. Maximal force in compression was measured with and without the guide in-place. (B) Representative mechanical testing traces for two back-to-back trials of the same dummy electrode. (C) Maximum force achieved in compression with and without the guide in-place, p < 0.001 (***), calculated by paired t-test of maximal achieved force with vs without guide in-place. (D) Scatterplot of fold-change in maximal force (i.e. fold-change = (Fmax,with/Fmax,without)) for each sample plotted against supported length (%) of the sample. Samples were of varying lengths, while the guide remained a constant 1/16′′ thickness. There is a very strong positive correlation as would be expected (i.e., the longer the probe, the more unsupported length there is to buckle). Part A of the figure was prepared by Erika Woodrum of the Cleveland FES Center, a contributor, with permission granted for use.
Figure 3Agar gel model insertion with and without the guide. The microprobes were inserted using a stereotactic arm with a micropositioner. The microprobes were lowered to just above the surface of the gel, and inserted at a speed of ~1 mm/s. (A) Example of a failed insertion attempt without the guide in-place. Note the dummy microprobe buckling as it makes contact with the surface of the 0.6% agar model. (B) Example of a successful insertion with guide in place. (C) Successful rate of insertion with and without guides. (D) Rate of trials resulting in any buckling regardless of insertion status.
Young’s moduli of example microelectrode substrates versus rat brain.
| Material | Approximate Young’s Moduli (MPa) | Refs. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silicon | ~165,000 |
[ | |
| Pt/Ir (90%/10%) | ~170,000 |
[ | |
| Cellulose nanocomposite |
| 4,2001.6 |
[ |
| Thiol-ene/acrylateShape Memory Polymer |
| ~2,000~30 |
[ |
| Rat brain tissue | 0.015–0.45 |
[ | |
While the methods and values vary in the reported literature, the relative magnitudes are conserved such that Young’s moduli of typical electrode substrates are much greater than polymer-based microelectrode substrates, even dynamically changing materials in their ‘stiff’ state.
Figure 4Implantation with shape memory polymer microelectrode with guide on brain surface. (A–D) feature progressive screen shots from a video taken during implantation of thiol-ene/acrylate microelectrodes. Guide thickness = 1 mm for reference. (E) 100% (8 of 8) insertion trials were successful with the automated insertion system and guide in place versus only 37.5% of trials without the guide.
Critical Design Factors.
| Critical Design Factors | Recommendations | |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing | Heat Resistant Polymers;Laser Cutting Parameters (Speed, Power);Small Geometry, Precise Cuts;Scalability | PTFE, PMMA;Fast speed, low power <100 µm features;100 devices in ~5 min |
| Mechanics | Supported Length;Slit Thickness;Guide Placement on Surface | >20% → >4x increase in Fmax;2x microelectrode thickness;Direct contact with dura |
| Usability | Visual characteristics;Placement and Removal Handling;Adherence to Surface During Insertion | Transparent materials;Design amenable to gripping tools;Thru holes for bonding to skull |
A number of design factors were found to be critical to the manufacturability, mechanics, and usability of the guide.