| Literature DB >> 32151268 |
Kadir A Yildiz1, Alexander Y Shin2, Kenton R Kaufman3,4.
Abstract
The field of prosthetics has been evolving and advancing over the past decade, as patients with missing extremities are expecting to control their prostheses in as normal a way as possible. Scientists have attempted to satisfy this expectation by designing a connection between the nervous system of the patient and the prosthetic limb, creating the field of neuroprosthetics. In this paper, we broadly review the techniques used to bridge the patient's peripheral nervous system to a prosthetic limb. First, we describe the electrical methods including myoelectric systems, surgical innovations and the role of nerve electrodes. We then describe non-electrical methods used alone or in combination with electrical methods. Design concerns from an engineering point of view are explored, and novel improvements to obtain a more stable interface are described. Finally, a critique of the methods with respect to their long-term impacts is provided. In this review, nerve electrodes are found to be one of the most promising interfaces in the future for intuitive user control. Clinical trials with larger patient populations, and for longer periods of time for certain interfaces, will help to evaluate the clinical application of nerve electrodes.Entities:
Keywords: amputation; artificial limb; electric stimulation; electrodes; electromyography; extremities; neural conduction; neuroprosthesis; peripheral nervous system; prostheses and implants
Year: 2020 PMID: 32151268 PMCID: PMC7063740 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-020-00667-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Fig. 1Epimysial electrode [25]
Fig. 2Myoelectric systems. a Surgical plan for the TMR for high amputations [36] b Illustration of RPNI construction [37]
Fig. 3Two types of extraneural electrodes a Helical electrode [49] b Book electrodes [50]
Fig. 4Different types of cuff electrodes a Spiral cuff electrode [68] b Schematic of the FINE (https://newatlas.com/renet-darpa/27750) c LACE [69] d Drawing of the neural ribbon electrode [70]
Fig. 5Schematic of the SPINE [79]
Fig. 6Several forms of intrafascicular electrodes a The intrafascicular drawing of LIFE [84] b Schematic of the TIME [8] c Illustration of the SELINE [85] d USEA [86]
Fig. 7Schematic of a regenerative sieve electrode [115]
Fig. 8Schematic of IMES communication [158]
Summary of the results of the chronic in vivo studies in humans
| Interface | Longevity |
|---|---|
| Muscle electrodes | Stable after 16 years [ |
| TMR combined with IMES | Stable after 2,5 years [ |
| Epineural electrode | Stable after 18 years [ |
| Cuff electrode | Stable after 11 years [ |
| TIME | Stable after 6 months [ |
| USEA | Stable after 14 months [ |
Summary of the results of the chronic in vivo studies in animals, with the LIFE, SELINE and regenerative electrodes
| Interface | Longevity |
|---|---|
| LIFE | A life-time of 18-24 months is expected [ |
| SELINE | Inflammatory response in the early phase, but stable after 6 months [ |
| Regenerative electrodes | Inflammatory response to nerve transection, but good signal quality after 4 months [ |