Cargando…
Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues
Intraneural interfaces are stimulation/registration devices designed to couple the peripheral nervous system (PNS) with the environment. Over the last years, their use has increased in a wide range of applications, such as the control of a new generation of neural-interfaced prostheses. At present,...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5592213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28932181 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00497 |
_version_ | 1783262850061434880 |
---|---|
author | Lotti, Fiorenza Ranieri, Federico Vadalà, Gianluca Zollo, Loredana Di Pino, Giovanni |
author_facet | Lotti, Fiorenza Ranieri, Federico Vadalà, Gianluca Zollo, Loredana Di Pino, Giovanni |
author_sort | Lotti, Fiorenza |
collection | PubMed |
description | Intraneural interfaces are stimulation/registration devices designed to couple the peripheral nervous system (PNS) with the environment. Over the last years, their use has increased in a wide range of applications, such as the control of a new generation of neural-interfaced prostheses. At present, the success of this technology is limited by an electrical impedance increase, due to an inflammatory response called foreign body reaction (FBR), which leads to the formation of a fibrotic tissue around the interface, eventually causing an inefficient transduction of the electrical signal. Based on recent developments in biomaterials and inflammatory/fibrotic pathologies, we explore and select the biological solutions that might be adopted in the neural interfaces FBR context: modifications of the interface surface, such as organic and synthetic coatings; the use of specific drugs or molecular biology tools to target the microenvironment around the interface; the development of bio-engineered-scaffold to reduce immune response and promote interface-tissue integration. By linking what we believe are the major crucial steps of the FBR process with related solutions, we point out the main issues that future research has to focus on: biocompatibility without losing signal conduction properties, good reproducible in vitro/in vivo models, drugs exhaustion and undesired side effects. The underlined pros and cons of proposed solutions show clearly the importance of a better understanding of all the molecular and cellular pathways involved and the need of a multi-target action based on a bio-engineered combination approach. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5592213 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55922132017-09-20 Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues Lotti, Fiorenza Ranieri, Federico Vadalà, Gianluca Zollo, Loredana Di Pino, Giovanni Front Neurosci Neuroscience Intraneural interfaces are stimulation/registration devices designed to couple the peripheral nervous system (PNS) with the environment. Over the last years, their use has increased in a wide range of applications, such as the control of a new generation of neural-interfaced prostheses. At present, the success of this technology is limited by an electrical impedance increase, due to an inflammatory response called foreign body reaction (FBR), which leads to the formation of a fibrotic tissue around the interface, eventually causing an inefficient transduction of the electrical signal. Based on recent developments in biomaterials and inflammatory/fibrotic pathologies, we explore and select the biological solutions that might be adopted in the neural interfaces FBR context: modifications of the interface surface, such as organic and synthetic coatings; the use of specific drugs or molecular biology tools to target the microenvironment around the interface; the development of bio-engineered-scaffold to reduce immune response and promote interface-tissue integration. By linking what we believe are the major crucial steps of the FBR process with related solutions, we point out the main issues that future research has to focus on: biocompatibility without losing signal conduction properties, good reproducible in vitro/in vivo models, drugs exhaustion and undesired side effects. The underlined pros and cons of proposed solutions show clearly the importance of a better understanding of all the molecular and cellular pathways involved and the need of a multi-target action based on a bio-engineered combination approach. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5592213/ /pubmed/28932181 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00497 Text en Copyright © 2017 Lotti, Ranieri, Vadalà, Zollo and Di Pino. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Lotti, Fiorenza Ranieri, Federico Vadalà, Gianluca Zollo, Loredana Di Pino, Giovanni Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues |
title | Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues |
title_full | Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues |
title_fullStr | Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues |
title_full_unstemmed | Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues |
title_short | Invasive Intraneural Interfaces: Foreign Body Reaction Issues |
title_sort | invasive intraneural interfaces: foreign body reaction issues |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5592213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28932181 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00497 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lottifiorenza invasiveintraneuralinterfacesforeignbodyreactionissues AT ranierifederico invasiveintraneuralinterfacesforeignbodyreactionissues AT vadalagianluca invasiveintraneuralinterfacesforeignbodyreactionissues AT zolloloredana invasiveintraneuralinterfacesforeignbodyreactionissues AT dipinogiovanni invasiveintraneuralinterfacesforeignbodyreactionissues |