Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface for Prostheses Control: Electrode Comparison

Abstract

Background This study compared epimysial patch electrodes with intramuscular hook electrodes using monopolar and bipolar recording configurations. The purpose was to determine which strategy transduced muscle signals with better fidelity for control of myoelectric prostheses.

Methods One of the two electrode styles, patch (n = 4) or hook (n = 6) was applied to the left extensor digitorum longus muscle in rats. Electrodes were evaluated at the time of placement and at monthly intervals for 4 months. Evaluations consisted of evoked electromyography signals from stimulation pulses applied to the peroneal and tibial nerves in both monopolar and bipolar recording configurations.

Results Compared with hook electrodes, patch electrodes recorded larger signals of interest and minimized muscle tissue injury. A bipolar electrode configuration significantly reduced signal noise when compared with a monopolar configuration.

Conclusion Epimysial patch electrodes outperform intramuscular hook electrodes during chronic skeletal muscle implantation.

Keywords

regenerative peripheral nerve interface - epimysial patch electrode - intramuscular hook electrode

• References

• 1 Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89 (3) 422-429
• 2 Freeland AE, Psonak R. Traumatic below-elbow amputations. Orthopedics 2007; 30 (2) 120-126
• 3 Carlsen BT, Prigge P, Peterson J. Upper extremity limb loss: functional restoration from prosthesis and targeted reinnervation to transplantation. J Hand Ther 2014; 27 (2) 106-113 , quiz 114
• 4 Dhillon GS, Horch KW. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2005; 13 (4) 468-472
• 5 Urbanchek MG, Baghmanli Z, Moon JD, Sugg KB, Langhals NB, Cederna PS. Quantification of Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface Signal Transmission. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (5S-1): 55-56
• 6 Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 86 (12) 977-987
• 7 Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31 (3) 236-257
• 8 Wright TW, Hagen AD, Wood MB. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg Am 1995; 20 (4) 619-622
• 9 Kung TA, Bueno RA, Alkhalefah GK, Langhals NB, Urbanchek MG, Cederna PS. Innovations in prosthetic interfaces for the upper extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (6) 1515-1523
• 10 Schultz AE, Kuiken TA. Neural interfaces for control of upper limb prostheses: the state of the art and future possibilities. PM R 2011; 3 (1) 55-67
• 11 Baldwin J, Mood JD, Cederna PS, Urbanchek MG. Early muscle revascularization and regeneration at the regenerative peripheral nerve interface. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (1S) 73
• 12 Kung TA, Langhals NB, Martin DC, Johnson PJ, Cederna PS, Urbanchek MG. Regenerative peripheral nerve interface viability and signal transduction with an implanted electrode. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (6) 1380-1394
• 13 Urbanchek MG, Wei B, Baghmanli Z, Sugg K, Cederna PS. Long-Term Stability of Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interfaces (RPNI). Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (4S) 88-89
• 14 National Research Council (US) Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011
• 15 Navarro X, Krueger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2005; 10 (3) 229-258
• 16 Langhals NB, Woo SL, Moon JD , et al. Electrically stimulated signals from a long-term regenerative peripheral nerve interface. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2014; 1989-1992
• 17 Woo SL, Urbanchek MG, Leach MK, Moon JD, Cederna P, Langhals NB. Quantification of muscle-derived signal interference during monopolar needle electromyography of a peripheral nerve interface in the rat hind limb. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2014; 4382-4385
• 18 Segal SS, White TP, Faulkner JA. Architecture, composition, and contractile properties of rat soleus muscle grafts. Am J Physiol 1986; 250 (3 Pt 1): C474-C479
• 19 Weir RF, Troyk PR, DeMichele GA, Kerns DA, Schorsch JF, Maas H. Implantable myoelectric sensors (IMESs) for intramuscular electromyogram recording. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2009; 56 (1) 159-171
• 20 Hargrove LJ, Englehart K, Hudgins B. A comparison of surface and intramuscular myoelectric signal classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2007; 54 (5) 847-853
• 21 Mortimer JT, Kaufman D, Roessman U. Intramuscular electrical stimulation: tissue damage. Ann Biomed Eng 1980; 8 (3) 235-244
• 22 Brody LR, Pollock MT, Roy SH, De Luca CJ, Celli B. pH-induced effects on median frequency and conduction velocity of the myoelectric signal. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1991; 71 (5) 1878-1885
• 23 Onishi H, Yagi R, Akasaka K, Momose K, Ihashi K, Handa Y. Relationship between EMG signals and force in human vastus lateralis muscle using multiple bipolar wire electrodes. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000; 10 (1) 59-67
• 24 Baldwin JF, Washabaugh IV EP, Moon JD , et al. Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) on decellular scaffolding interrupts grafted muscle revascularization. 6th Int IEEE EMBS Conf Neural Eng 2013; 1461-1464
• 25 Farrell TR, Weir RF. A comparison of the effects of electrode implantation and targeting on pattern classification accuracy for prosthesis control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008; 55 (9) 2198-2211
• 26 Grill WM, Mortimer JT. Electrical properties of implant encapsulation tissue. Ann Biomed Eng 1994; 22 (1) 23-33