2
$\begingroup$

I'm wondering if there is any quantitative (or a least first-hand qualitative) evidence that relates the stability of chronic, invasive neural recordings with the use of skull screws versus a high-quality enamel echant and cement (e.g. http://www.parkell.com/c-b-metabond_3).

  • My use case is tetrode and silicon probe drive implants in rodents
  • I'm asking because there is a huge variability in the quality of skull screw implantation in my field, the worst of which cause random A/P M/L bilateral lesions from animal to animal and therefore almost certainly affect experimental outcomes.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ sup. my question for you is why are you worried about this? Sure skull screws probably affect experimental outcomes, but so do a million other aspects of the protocol. why are you particularly worried about this? what kind of evidence would you expect to see, given that whatever effects of skull screw vs metabond are likely to be relatively subtle? $\endgroup$ – honi Feb 10 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, but certainly that should not stop us from taking steps to mitigate a part of the protocol obviously affects the system we are interested in studying. Bilateral lesions all across cortex are something I would like to avoid, along with the postoperative pain, increase chance of infection, and increased complexity of surgery that comes along with the use of skull screws. If somebody has implanted microdrive arrays without skull screws and seen no affect on stability, I want to use their protocol and I want others to use it also. That is why I put the question here. $\endgroup$ – jonnew Feb 11 at 14:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.