Neuropathological effects of chronically implanted, intracortical microelectrodes in a tetraplegic patient. (27th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Szymanski, Linda J; Kellis, Spencer; Liu, Charles Y; Jones, Kymry T; Andersen, Richard A; Commins, Deborah; Lee, Brian; McCreery, Douglas B; Miller, Carol A
• Is Part Of: Journal of neural engineering. Volume 18:Number 4(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-07-27
• Subjects: postmortem human neuropathology -- neuroport intracortical microelectrode arrays -- electrical stimulation -- tetraplegic -- recording of neuronal action potentials; Neurosciences -- Periodicals; Biomedical engineering -- Periodicals; 612.8
• DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac127e
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1741-2560

Abstract

Abstract: Objective. Intracortical microelectrode arrays (MEA) can be used as part of a brain–machine interface system to provide sensory feedback control of an artificial limb to assist persons with tetraplegia. Variability in functionality of electrodes has been reported but few studies in humans have examined the impact of chronic brain tissue responses revealed postmortem on electrode performance in vivo. Approach. In a tetraplegic man, recording MEAs were implanted into the anterior intraparietal area and Brodmann's area 5 (BA5) of the posterior parietal cortex and a recording and stimulation array was implanted in BA1 of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). The participant expired from unrelated causes seven months after MEA implantation. The underlying tissue of two of the three devices was processed for histology and electrophysiological recordings were assessed. Main results. Recordings of neuronal activity were obtained from all three MEAs despite meningeal encapsulation. However, the S1 array had a greater encapsulation, yielded lower signal quality than the other arrays and failed to elicit somatosensory percepts with electrical stimulation. Histological examination of tissues underlying S1 and BA5 implant sites revealed localized leptomeningeal proliferation and fibrosis, lymphocytic infiltrates, astrogliosis, and foreign body reaction around the electrodes. The BA5 recording site showed focal cerebral microhemorrhages and leptomeningeal vascular ectasia. The S1 site showed focal tissue damage including vascular recanalization, neuronal loss, and extensive subcortical white matter necrosis. The tissue response at the S1 site included hemorrhagic-induced injury suggesting a likely mechanism for reduced function of the S1 implant. Significance. Our findings are similar to those from animal studies with chronic intracortical implants and suggest that vascular disruption and microhemorrhage during device implantation are important contributors to overall array and individual electrode performance and should be a topic for future device development to mitigate tissue responses. Neurosurgical considerations are also discussed.