Experimental Testing of Bionic Peripheral Nerve and Muscle Interfaces: Animal Model Considerations

Introduction: Man-machine interfacing remains the main challenge for accurate and reliable control of bionic prostheses. Implantable electrodes in nerves and muscles may overcome some of the limitations by significantly increasing the interface's reliability and bandwidth. Before human application, experimental preclinical testing is essential to assess chronic in-vivo biocompatibility and functionality. Here, we analyze available animal models, their costs and ethical challenges in special regards to simulating a potentially life-long application in a short period of time and in non-biped animals. Methods: We performed a literature analysis following the PRISMA guidelines including all animal models used to record neural or muscular activity via implantable electrodes, evaluating animal models, group size, duration, origin of publication as well as type of interface. Furthermore, behavioral, ethical, and economic considerations of these models were analyzed. Additionally, we discuss experience and surgical approaches with rat, sheep, and primate models and an approach for international standardized testing. Results: Overall, 343 studies matched the search terms, dominantly originating from the US (55%) and Europe (34%), using mainly small animal models (rat: 40%). Electrode placement was dominantly neural (77%) compared to muscular (23%). Large animal models had a mean duration of 135 ± 87.2 days, with a mean of 5.3 ± 3.4 animals per trial. Small animal models had a mean duration of 85 ± 11.2 days, with a mean of 12.4 ± 1.7 animals. Discussion: Only 37% animal models were by definition chronic tests (>3 months) and thus potentially provide information on long-term performance. Costs for large animals were up to 45 times higher than small animals. However, costs are relatively small compared to complication costs in human long-term applications. Overall, we believe a combination of small animals for preliminary primary electrode testing and large animals to investigate long-term biocompatibility, impedance, and tissue regeneration parameters provides sufficient data to ensure long-term human applications.

[1]  J. Guillen Federation of European laboratory animal science associations (FELASA) , 2005 .

[2]  J. Guillen FELASA guidelines and recommendations. , 2012, Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS.

[3]  C. Rehbinder,et al.  FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of experimental units of calves, sheep and goats: Report of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) Working Group on Animal Health , 2000, Laboratory animals.

[4]  Hans Dietl,et al.  Prosthesis Control with an Implantable Multichannel Wireless Electromyography System for High-Level Amputees: A Large-Animal Study , 2016, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  Cynthia A. Chestek,et al.  Closed-Loop Continuous Hand Control via Chronic Recording of Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interfaces , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[6]  H. V. Herck,et al.  Recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, guineapig and rabbit breeding colonies: Report of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) Working Group on Animal Health accepted by the FELASA Board of Management November 1992 , 1994, Laboratory animals.

[7]  Stephen T. Foldes,et al.  Intracortical microstimulation of human somatosensory cortex , 2016, Science Translational Medicine.

[8]  D. Farina,et al.  Peripheral nerve transfers change target muscle structure and function , 2019, Science Advances.

[9]  B. Rollin,et al.  The experimental animal in biomedical research. Volume 1. A survey of scientific and ethical issues for investigators. , 1990 .

[10]  G. Voskerician,et al.  Foreign Body Reaction , 2006, Definitions.

[11]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Biocompatibility of implants: lymphocyte/macrophage interactions , 2011, Seminars in Immunopathology.

[12]  C. Robinson,et al.  The raccoon as an animal model for upper limb neural prosthetics. , 1996, The journal of spinal cord medicine.

[13]  Max Ortiz-Catalan,et al.  On the viability of implantable electrodes for the natural control of artificial limbs: Review and discussion , 2012, Biomedical engineering online.

[14]  Philip R. Troyk,et al.  Implantable Myoelectric Sensors (IMESs) for Intramuscular Electromyogram Recording , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  M. Calasans-Maia,et al.  SHEEP AS AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR BIOMATERIAL IMPLANT EVALUATION , 2016, Acta ortopedica brasileira.

[16]  Xavier Navarro,et al.  Interfaces with the peripheral nerve for the control of neuroprostheses. , 2013, International review of neurobiology.

[17]  R. Onders,et al.  Long‐term experience with diaphragm pacing for traumatic spinal cord injury: Early implantation should be considered , 2018, Surgery.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[19]  Dario Farina,et al.  Bionic reconstruction to restore hand function after brachial plexus injury: a case series of three patients , 2015, The Lancet.

[20]  Michael Berger,et al.  Wireless recording from unrestrained monkeys reveals motor goal encoding beyond immediate reach in frontoparietal cortex , 2020, eLife.

[21]  Richard F. Averill,et al.  Estimating the Costs of Potentially Preventable Hospital Acquired Complications , 2009, Health care financing review.

[22]  Dario Farina,et al.  Bionic Limbs: Clinical Reality and Academic Promises , 2014, Science Translational Medicine.

[23]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  David Hankin,et al.  First-in-man demonstration of a fully implanted myoelectric sensors system to control an advanced electromechanical prosthetic hand , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[25]  Feng Wang,et al.  High-resolution functional MRI identified distinct global intrinsic functional networks of nociceptive posterior insula and S2 regions in squirrel monkey brain , 2017, NeuroImage.

[26]  Justin J. Baker,et al.  Decoding individuated finger flexions with Implantable MyoElectric Sensors , 2008, 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[27]  Yu Song,et al.  Wearable and Implantable Electronics: Moving toward Precision Therapy. , 2019, ACS nano.

[28]  D T Hutchinson,et al.  Continuous Detection and Decoding of Dexterous Finger Flexions With Implantable MyoElectric Sensors , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[29]  R. Lemon Descending pathways in motor control. , 2008, Annual review of neuroscience.

[30]  Christopher M. Frost,et al.  Development of a Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface for Control of a Neuroprosthetic Limb , 2016, BioMed research international.

[31]  J. Boutrand Biocompatibility and performance of medical devices , 2012 .

[32]  S. Salminger,et al.  Experimental nerve transfer model in the rat forelimb , 2016, European Surgery.

[33]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Exploiting the inflammatory response on biomaterials research and development , 2015, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine.

[34]  D. Hickman,et al.  Effect of multilevel laboratory rat caging system on the well-being of the singly-housed Sprague Dawley rat , 2015, Laboratory animals.

[35]  G. Leblebicioğlu Biocompatibility of implants. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[36]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Critical Factors in Device Abandonment , 2007, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[37]  T. Ohmori,et al.  LAB , 2020, Catalysis from A to Z.

[38]  K. Englehart,et al.  Return to work after occupational injury and upper limb amputation. , 2017, Occupational medicine.

[39]  D. Farina,et al.  Decoding motor neuron activity from epimysial thin-film electrode recordings following targeted muscle reinnervation , 2018, Journal of neural engineering.

[40]  Dietmar Schroeder,et al.  Long-term decoding of movement force and direction with a wireless myoelectric implant. , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[41]  O. Aszmann,et al.  Algorithm for bionic hand reconstruction in patients with global brachial plexopathies. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery.

[42]  Srikanth Vasudevan,et al.  Rodent model for assessing the long term safety and performance of peripheral nerve recording electrodes , 2017, Journal of neural engineering.

[43]  S. Parasuraman,et al.  Toxicological screening , 2011, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics.

[44]  C. Hughes,et al.  Of Mice and Not Men: Differences between Mouse and Human Immunology , 2004, The Journal of Immunology.

[45]  Jana D. Moon,et al.  Regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces for real-time, proportional control of a Neuroprosthetic hand , 2018, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[46]  Dario Farina,et al.  Broadband Prosthetic Interfaces: Combining Nerve Transfers and Implantable Multichannel EMG Technology to Decode Spinal Motor Neuron Activity , 2017, Front. Neurosci..

[47]  Aidan D. Roche,et al.  Motor Unit Characteristics after Targeted Muscle Reinnervation , 2016, PloS one.

[48]  C. Jang,et al.  A Survey on Activities of Daily Living and Occupations of Upper Extremity Amputees , 2011, Annals of rehabilitation medicine.

[49]  James M. Anderson,et al.  Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. , 2008, Seminars in immunology.