Catalog specification sheet - Peripheral nerve

Regenerative Microchannel Interface

Complete Figure 3 showing open and covered microchannels, the rolled scaffold cross-section, and a close-up of neighboring channel layers with original scales. — Microchannels and the rolled scaffold architecture. Complete Figure 3.

Srinivasan 2015 peripheral-nerve research scaffold; this figure shows the channel architecture.

Image credit & source

Srinivasan et al., Biomaterials (2015), Figure 3; © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. · Biomaterials · complete Figure 3 · © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. · source copyright retained.

Complete PMC source figure copied intact, byte for byte. All panels, annotations and scale bars retained; no cropping, re-encoding, upscaling or synthetic enhancement.

Complete Figure 9 with proximal, distal and side photographs of the rolled microchannel interface and its integrated microwire electrodes, including original scale bars. — Microchannel interface assembly with integrated microwires, viewed from three sides. Complete Figure 9.

Representative wired scaffold assembly from the same 2015 peripheral-nerve study.

Image credit & source

Srinivasan et al., Biomaterials (2015), Figure 9; © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. · Biomaterials · complete Figure 9 · © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. · source copyright retained.

Complete PMC source figure copied intact, byte for byte. All panels, annotations and scale bars retained; no cropping, re-encoding, upscaling or synthetic enhancement.

Code: ?1R
Reviewed: 2026-02-06
Interface: pni
Evidence stage: research

Independent, source-linked catalog sheet. Not a manufacturer-issued datasheet, regulatory decision or instructions for clinical use. Human evidence does not establish approval. Source-specific restrictions, conflicts and missing specifications are retained below.

Microchannel-based regenerative scaffold interface (Srinivasan et al., 2015)

All rows follow the shared implant-device template. Measurements belong to the named study or configuration. A blank cell means the reviewed sources do not establish a value. Proposed use, terminal assays and continuously functioning implants are not treated as equivalent.

Identity

Field	Value and source scope
Device	Srinivasan 2015 PDMS/SU-8 regenerative microchannel scaffold
Manufacturer	Academic fabrication in Srinivasan et al.
Interface class	Regenerative peripheral microchannel recording interface
Origin	Georgia Tech/Emory research team; design builds on prior microchannel work
First demonstrated	2015 journal report, online December 2014; earliest family demonstration not established
First human implant	Reviewed study is rat preclinical work
Species studied	Rat sciatic amputee model
Regulatory status	Preclinical research
Function	Scaffold-guided regeneration and terminal neural recording after chronic implantation
Target tissue	Transected sciatic axons without distal reinnervation targets

Geometry and architecture

Field	Value and source scope
Interface type	Regenerative microchannels with integrated microwires
Array layout	PDMS top/bottom layers with SU-8 channel walls; scaffold rolled before implantation
Electrode count	Integrated microwire count not reported in audited publisher excerpts; number of channels is not assumed to equal electrodes
Pitch	100 x 100 µm channel cross section; 20 x 100 µm walls in fabrication excerpt. Contact pitch not reported
Electrode lengths	3 mm microchannel length in design discussion; not penetrating electrode length
Shank width and thickness	40 µm base PDMS, 100 µm SU-8 layer, fabrication excerpt; total rolled scaffold dimensions not reported
Tip and exposed site geometry	Microwires integrated into bottom PDMS; exposed wire geometry not reported in audited excerpts
Contact coating
Insulation	PDMS and SU-8 scaffold; microwire insulation not reported
Insertion method	Regenerating transected axons enter rolled microchannel scaffold in sciatic amputee model
Anchoring and fixation

Electrode and channel physics

Field	Value and source scope
Exposed site area
Electrode material	Microwire conductor material not reported in audited excerpts; fabrication substrate Ti/Au anti-adhesion layers are not asserted as electrode material
Impedance (with measurement frequency)
Noise floor or SNR
Recording modality	Spontaneous, sensory-evoked and electrically evoked single-/multi-unit action potentials at five-month terminal experiment
Sampling rate
Stimulation capability	Electrically evoked signals recorded; direct stimulation through integrated scaffold wires not established by audited excerpts
Charge injection limit
Reference and ground

Tissue interface and bioresponse

Field	Value and source scope
Target tissue	Regenerating peripheral axons, Schwann cells and fibroblasts inside microchannels
Insertion trauma and BBB disruption	BBB: not applicable; model intentionally transects/amputates nerve
Vascular disruption risk
Micromotion sensitivity
Gliosis and encapsulation	Publisher abstract reports organized axons, endoneurial tubes and myelination distal to scaffold, without disorganized growth characteristic of neuroma; not a zero-neuroma clinical rate
Neuron loss near sites
Foreign-body response mitigation	Biocompatible PDMS/SU-8 construction tested in vitro and in vivo; response not generalized to all packaging
Typical failure modes	Quantitative failure modes/rates not reported in audited excerpts; channel-clogging is not asserted as observed

System architecture

Field	Value and source scope
Onboard electronics	Passive microwires integrated in scaffold; active onboard electronics not reported
Data path	External terminal electrophysiology after chronic scaffold implant; chronic wiring/packaging not demonstrated in this study
Telemetry bandwidth	Not applicable to described terminal wired acquisition
Sampling rate
Power	External electrophysiology equipment at terminal test
Thermal management
Packaging and hermeticity	PDMS/SU-8 scaffold, no validated hermetic implanted electronic package
MRI compatibility
Surgical complexity	Invasive regenerative nerve model with no distal target
Output connectors

Performance envelope

Field	Value and source scope
Acute yield
Chronic yield	All devices in described terminal study recorded neural activity after five months; device count and per-contact yield not reported in audited abstract
Stability over time	Five-month endpoint recording, not five months of continuous recordings
Longevity	Five months implanted before terminal recording; maximum lifetime not reported
Revision and explant experience	Terminal testing; clinical revision experience not applicable
Adverse events	Clinical safety not reported; morphology findings not proof of absence of all complications
Notable demonstrations	Single-/multi-unit activity recorded from chronically implanted microchannels in amputee-model nerve

Clinical and preclinical evidence

Field	Value and source scope
Human subjects	Not applicable to reviewed preclinical study
Preclinical cohort	Rat sciatic amputee model; total and electrode-bearing subgroup counts not reported in audited publisher excerpts
Follow-up duration	Five-month terminal neural recording experiment
Indications	Preclinical prosthetic peripheral nerve interface after amputation
Trials and registries	Human registry not applicable
Primary outcomes	Cytocompatibility, organized regeneration and terminal electrophysiology
Key limitations	Publisher excerpts lack full electrode/connector details; five-month endpoint does not establish continuous chronic recording or human efficacy

Engineering tradeoffs

Field	Value and source scope
Strengths	Channels organize regeneration and permit terminal neural recordings after chronic implant
Limitations	Transection/amputee model and unresolved chronic wiring/packaging
Scaling constraints	Microchannel geometry, integrated wiring and rolling/assembly; large-electrode-count interface remains a stated goal

References

Srinivasan et al. 2015. Microchannel-based regenerative scaffold for chronic peripheral nerve interfacing in amputees. Publisher abstract and available fabrication/results excerpts; missing hardware details remain not reported.