Event Abstract

Manufacture and in vivo evaluation of laminated microchannel neural interfaces: do endoneurial basement membrane protein coatings enhance peripheral nerve regeneration through microchannels?

  • 1 University College London, John Scales Centre for Biomedical Engineering, United Kingdom
  • 2 University College London, Aspire Centre for Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technologies, United Kingdom
  • 3 University College London, Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, United Kingdom

Introduction: Developing long-term neural interfaces for prosthetic control remains challenging[1]. Microchannel neural interfaces (MNIs) overcome some difficulties with neural recording: reducing microchannel diameter, increases recorded signal amplitude and selectivity[2],[3]. However, in vivo, small microchannels (< 50 μm ⌀) become obstructed by fibrous tissue[4]-[6]. Basement membrane (BM) protein coatings improve neural regeneration in vitro[7]. We hypothesise that coating the MNI lumen with BM protein will improve nerve regeneration.

Materials and Methods: MNIs with 150 µm by 200 µm by 5 mm microchannels were prepared by bonding silicone and metal foil sheets[8] and coated with mixed BM proteins (10 µg/cm² Collagen-IV + 1 µg/cm² Laminin-2 + 175 ng/cm² Nidogen-1): the BM group. The control group was unmodified MNIs.

In vivo procedures complied with the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986 rev. 2013). Adult, male, Lewis rats (N=24) were randomised to 4 groups (n=6): 4 weeks BM; 4 weeks control; 8 weeks BM; 8 weeks control. MNIs were implanted by resecting the sciatic nerve, at mid-thigh. MNIs were secured using proximal and distal epineurial sutures (9-0 polyamide, S&T).

Sciatic function index (SFI) was monitored weekly[9]. After 4 and 8 weeks MNIs were evaluated using wax histology[10]. Nerve morphometry immediately proximal and distal to MNIs was assessed.

Results: A single animal was lost to follow-up (4 weeks control). SFI increased over 8 weeks in both groups (fig 1., p<0.001). There was no significant difference in SFI rate between groups, circa +0.57 units per day (p=0.9286).

Distal axon diameters were greater in the control group at 4 weeks (p<0.001), and greater in the BM group at 8 weeks (fig 2, p<0.001). Axon density was greater proximal to MNIs in the control group and, greater distally in the BM group (not significant, p≥0.188).

Control group electrode impedance fell significantly following implantation (p=0.01), but not in the BM group (p≥0.133). 1 kHz impedance was not significantly different between the groups at 4 or 8 weeks (p≥0.089).

Discussion: There was no difference in functional recovery between control and BM groups. As with long nerve defects complete recovery was not observed[11]. Histology indicated frustrated axon growth in the control group, while BM encouraged axon growth through the MNI increasing distal axon densities. MNIs may act as nerve guides, directing axon regrowth. Axon density and diameter were lower than for healthy nerve. Axon diameters were similar to previous MNI studies[4], but smaller than non-resected nerve interfaces[12].

Conclusion: BM proteins did not noticeably improve outcomes; however, alternative MNI lumen coatings may improve nerve regeneration. We are now developing the next generation MNIs by increasing the open cross sectional area, reducing feature size, and including amplification and multiplexing.

We would like to thank Gillian Hughes and Roberta Ferro de Godoy for assistance with the in vivo work.; We would like to thank Alexander Mosse and Elliot Magee for assistance with device manufacture.; HL would like to thank the EPSRC (UK) for funding through the M3S Doctoral Training Centre (EP/G036675/1) and the UCL Doctoral Prize Fellowship schemes.

References:
[1] Durand et al 2014 doi:10.1088/1741-2560/11/2/020201
[2] FitzGerald et al 2009 doi: 10.1109/TBME.2009.2013960
[3] FitzGerald et al 2008 doi: 10.1109/TBME.2007.909533
[4] FitzGerald et al 2012 doi:10.1088/1741-2560/9/1/016010
[5] Lacour et al 2009 doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2009.2031241
[6] Srinivasan et al 2015 doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.11.035
[7] Lancashire et al 2013 ESB Conference pp32
[8] Lancashire et al 2015 J Neural Eng (in review)
[9] Bain et al 1989 PRS 83(1) pp129-136
[10] Di Scipio et al 2008 doi:10.1002/jemt.20577
[11] Li et al 2014 doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.06.049
[12] Wark et al 2014 doi:10.1088/1741-2560/11/4/046027

Keywords: Extracellular Matrix, in vivo, Implant, Tissue Regeneration

Conference: 10th World Biomaterials Congress, Montréal, Canada, 17 May - 22 May, 2016.

Presentation Type: Poster

Topic: Biomaterials in nerve regeneration

Citation: Lancashire H, Al-Ajam Y, Pendegrass CJ, Vanhoestenberghe A, Donaldson N and Blunn GW (2016). Manufacture and in vivo evaluation of laminated microchannel neural interfaces: do endoneurial basement membrane protein coatings enhance peripheral nerve regeneration through microchannels?. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. Conference Abstract: 10th World Biomaterials Congress. doi: 10.3389/conf.FBIOE.2016.01.01802

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 27 Mar 2016; Published Online: 30 Mar 2016.

* Correspondence:
Dr. Henry Lancashire, University College London, John Scales Centre for Biomedical Engineering, London, United Kingdom, henry.lancashire.10@ucl.ac.uk
Dr. Catherine J Pendegrass, University College London, John Scales Centre for Biomedical Engineering, London, United Kingdom, Email1
Dr. Anne Vanhoestenberghe, University College London, Aspire Centre for Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technologies, London, United Kingdom, Email2
Dr. Nick Donaldson, University College London, Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, London, United Kingdom, Email3