Abstract
The in vivo electrochemical behavior of titanium nitride (TiN) nerve stimulation electrodes was compared to their in vitro behavior for a period of 90 days. Ten electrodes were implanted in two Göttingen minipigs. Four of these were used for electrical stimulation and electrochemical measurements. Five electrodes were kept in Ringer's solution at 37.5°C, of which four were used for electrical stimulation and electrochemical measurements. The voltage transients measured in vivo were 13 times greater than in vitro at implantation and they continued to increase with time. The electrochemical properties in vivo and the tissue resistance (Rtissue) followed a similar trend with time. There was no consistent significant difference between the electrochemical properties of the in vivo and in vitro electrodes after the implanted period. The differences between the in vivo and in vitro electrodes during the implanted period show that the evaluation of electrochemical performance of implantable stimulation electrodes cannot be substituted with in vitro measurements. After the implanted period, however, the performance of the in vivo and in vitro electrodes in saline was similar. In addition, the changes observed over time during the post-implantation period regarding the electrochemical properties of the in vivo electrodes and Rtissue were similar, which indicates that these changes are due to the foreign body response to implantation.
Highlights
Peripheral nerve stimulation electrodes are currently applied among others to restore vision, hearing, movement, breathing, continence, and to relieve pain (Navarro et al, 2005; Stieglitz and Meyer, 2006; Zhou and Greenbaum, 2009)
Four of them were used for electrical stimulation and electrochemical measurements
It was impossible to complete the measurements of some electrodes
Summary
Peripheral nerve stimulation electrodes are currently applied among others to restore vision, hearing, movement, breathing, continence, and to relieve pain (Navarro et al, 2005; Stieglitz and Meyer, 2006; Zhou and Greenbaum, 2009). It is advantageous to make such electrodes as small as possible to minimize tissue trauma, while reducing the risk of activating other excitable tissue (Stieglitz and Meyer, 2006). A small surface area limits transfer of charge, leading to a small volume of tissue that can be excited. This increases the risk of losing the clinical effect due to movement or encapsulation of the electrode, for example.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
