Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 23–33 | Cite as

Electrical properties of implant encapsulation tissue

  • Warren M. Grill
  • J. Thomas Mortimer
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the electrical properties of the encapsulation tissue that surrounds electrodes chronically implanted in the body. Two four-electrode arrays, fabricated from either epoxy or silicone rubber, were implanted in each of six adult cats for 82 to 156 days.In vivo measurements of tissue resistivity using the four-electrode technique indicated that formation of the encapsulation tissue resulted in a significant increase in the resistivity of the tissue around the arrays.In vitro measurements of tissue impedance using a four-electrode cell indicated that the resistivity of the encapsulation tissue was a function of the tissue morphology. The tight layers of fibroblasts and collagen that formed around the silicone rubber arrays had a resistivity of 627±108 Ω-cm (mean ± SD; n=6), which was independent of frequency from 10 Hz to 100 kHz, and was significantly larger than the resistivity of the epoxy encapsulation tissue at all frequencies between 20 Hz and 100 kHz. The combination of macrophages, foreign body giant cells, loose collagen, and fibroblasts that formed around the epoxy arrays had a frequency-dependent resistivity that decreased from 454±123 Ω-cm (n=5) to 193±98 Ω-cm between 10 Hz and 1 kHz, and was independent of frequency between 1 kHz and 100 kHz, with a mean value of 195 ±88 Ω-cm. The results indicate that the resistivity of the encapsulation tissue is sufficient to alter the shape and magnitude of the electric field generated by chronically implanted electrodes.

Keywords

Electrical impedance Resistivity Conductivity Electrodes Neural prostheses 

Nomenclature

ρ

apparent resistivity of tissue around arrays measuredin vivo

V

magnitude of the voltage response measured between the inner pair of electrodes on an array

I

magnitude of the current applied between the outer pair of electrodes on an array

a

interelectrode spacing on the array

f

sinusoidal frequency

ρ(f)

resistivity of encapsulation tissue measuredin vitro

V(f)

voltage response measured with tissue in the cell

Vos(f)

offset voltage response measured without tissue in the cell

A

cross-sectional area of the interior of the four-electrode cell

I(f)

current applied between the outer pair of electrodes in the cell

t

thickness of tissue samples measured from fixed and stained samples

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackmann, J.J.; Seitz, M.A. Methods of complex impedance measurements in biologic tissue. CRC Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 11:281–311; 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agnew, W.F.; McCreery, D.B.; Yuen, T.G.H.; Bullara, L.A. Histologic and physiologic evaluation of electrically stimulated peripheral nerve: considerations for the selection of parameters. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 17:39–60; 1989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, J.M. Inflammatory response to implants. Trans. Am. Soc. Artif. Int. Organs Vol. XXXIV:101–107; 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartlett, J.R.; Doty, R.W.; Lee, B.B.; Negrao, N.; Overman, w.H. Deleterious effects of prolonged electrical stimulation of striate cortex in macaques. Brain Behav. Evol. 14:46–66; 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bak, M.; Girvin, J.P.; Hambrecht, F.T.; Kufta, C.V.; Loeb, G.E.; Schmidt, E.M. Visual sensations produced by intracortical microstimulation of the human occipital cortex. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 28:257–259; 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brindley, G.S.; Lewin, W.S. The sensations produced by electrical stimulation of the visual cortex. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 196:479–493; 1968.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chintalacharuvu, R.R.; Ksienski, D.A.; Mortimer, J.T. A numerical analysis of the electric field generated by a nerve cuff electrode. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 13:912–913; 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chintalacharuvu, R.R.; Ksienski, D.A.; Mortimer, J.T. A numerical analysis of the electric field generated by a nerve cuff electrode using the finite element method. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1994 (in press).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coleman, D.L.; King, R.N.; Andrade, J.D. The foreign body reaction: a chronic inflammatory response. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 8:199–211; 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Luca, C.J.; Gilmore, L.D.; Bloom, L.J.; Thomson, S.J.; Cudworth, A.L.; Glimcher, M.J. Long-term neuroelectric signal recording from severed nerves. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 29:393–402; 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devore, J.L. Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, ed. 2. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1987: pp. 608–614.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eisenberg, R.S.; Mathias, R.T. Structural analysis of electrical properties of cells and tissues. CRC Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 4:203–232; 1980.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geddes, L.A.; Baker, L.E. The specific resistance of biological material—a compendium of data for the biomedical engineer and physiologist. Med. Biol. Eng. 5:271–293; 1967.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grandjean, P.A.; Mortimer, J.T. Recruitment properties of monopolar and bipolar epimysial electrodes. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 14:53–66; 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grill, W.M.; Veraart, C.; Mortimer, J.T. Selective activation of peripheral nerve fascicles: use of field steering currents. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 13:904–905; 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grill, W.M.; Mortimer, J.T. Electrical impedance of electrode encapsulation tissue. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 14:1376–1377; 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lefurge, T.; Goodall, E.; Horch, K.; Stensaas, L.; Schoenberg, A. Chronically implanted intrafascicular recording electrodes. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 19:197–207; 1991.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loeb, G.E.; McHardy, J.; Kelliher, E.M.; Brummer, S.B. Neural prostheses.In: Williams, D.F.; ed. Biocompatibility in clinical practice, vol II. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press; 1982: pp. 123–149.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malek, A.M.; Mark, R.G. Functional electrical stimulation for the latissimus dorsi muscle for use in cardiac assist. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36:781–788; 1989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marsolais, E.B.; Kobetic, R. Functional electrical stimulation for walking in paraplegia. J. Bone Joint Surg. [Am] 69-A:728–733; 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martau, J.M. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of chronic electrical block of the pudenal nerve. M.S. Thesis. Department of Biomedical Engineering. Case Western Reserve University. 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matlaga, B.F.; Yasenchak, L.P.; Salthouse, T.N. Tissue response to implanted polymers: the significance of sample shape. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 10:391–397; 1976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McNamara, A.; Williams, D.F. The response to the intramuscular implantation of pure metals. Biomaterials 2:33–40; 1981.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mortimer, J.T.; Kaufman, D.; Roessmann, U. Intramuscular electrical stimulation: tissue damage. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 8:235–244; 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Naples, G.G.; Mortimer, J.T.; Yuen, T.G.H. Overview of peripheral nerve electrode design and implantation.In: Agnew, W.F.; McCreery, D.B.; eds. Neural prostheses: Fundamental Studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1990: pp. 108–145.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nashold, B.S., Jr.; Friedman, H. Dorsal column stimulation for control of pain. J. Neurosurg. 36:590–597; 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peckham, P.H.; Keith, M.W.; Freehafer, A.A. Restoration of functional control by electrical stimulation in the upper extremity of the quadriplegic patient. J. Bone Joint Surg. [Am] 70:144–148; 1988.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pineda, A. Complications of dorsal column stimulation. J. Neurosurg. 48:64–68; 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plonsey, R. Bioelectric phenomena. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1969: pp. 359–360.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reynolds, A.F.; Shetter, A.G.. Scarring around cervical epidural stimulating electrode. Neurosurgery 13:63–64; 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robbins, S.L.; Cotran, R.S. Pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1979: pp. 90–106.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ross, R. Wound healing. Sci. Am. 220:40–50; 1969.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rutten, W.L.C.; van Wier, H.J.; Put, J.H.M. Sensitivity and selectivity of intraneural stimulation using a silicon electrode array. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 38:192–198; 1991.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schindler, R.A.; Merzenich, M.M.; eds. Cochlear implants. New York: Raven; 1985.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwan, H.P. Electrical properties of tissue and cell suspensions.In: Lawrence, J.H.; Tobias, L.A.; eds. Advances in biological and medical physics, vol. 5. New York: Academic Press; 1957: pp. 147–209.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schwan, H.P. Determination of biological impedance.In: Natuk, W.L.; ed. Physical techniques in biological research. New York: Academic Press; 1963: pp. 323–407.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stein, R.B.; Charles, D.; Gordon, T.; Hoffer, J.A.; Jhamandas, J. Impedance of metal electrodes for chronic recording from mammalian nerves. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 25:532–537; 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stensaas, S.S.; Stensaas, L.J. Histopathological evaluation of materials implanted in the cerebral cortex. Acta Neuropathol. 41:145–155; 1978.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taylor, S.R.; Gibbons, D.F. Effect of surface texture of the soft tissue response to polymer implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 17:205–227; 1983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thoma, H.; Gerner, H.; Holle, J.; Kluger, P.; Mayr, W.; Meister, B.; Schwanda, G.; Stohr, H. The phrenic pacemaker: substitution of paralyzed functions in tetraplegia. Am. Soc. Artif. Intern. Organs Trans. 10:472–479; 1987.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wood, N.K.; Kaminski, E.J.; Oglesby, R.J. The significance of implant shape in experimental testing of biological materials: disk vs. rod. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 4:1–12; 1970.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ziaie, B.; Gianchandani, Y.; Najafi, K. A high-current IrOx thin-film neuromuscular microstimulator. Proc. Int. Solid-State Sensors and Actuators. Conf. 124–127; 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Warren M. Grill
    • 1
  • J. Thomas Mortimer
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Neural Control Laboratory, Department of Biomedical EngineeringCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland

Personalised recommendations