Soft and stretchable organic bioelectronics for continuous intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during microsurgery

Nature Biomedical Engineering (2023)Cite this article

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

In microneurosurgery, it is crucial to maintain the structural and functional integrity of the nerve through continuous intraoperative identification of neural anatomy. To this end, here we report the development of a translatable system leveraging soft and stretchable organic-electronic materials for continuous intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The system uses conducting polymer electrodes with low impedance and low modulus to record near-field action potentials continuously during microsurgeries, offers higher signal-to-noise ratios and reduced invasiveness when compared with handheld clinical probes for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring and can be multiplexed, allowing for the precise localization of the target nerve in the absence of anatomical landmarks. Compared with commercial metal electrodes, the neurophysiological monitoring system allowed for enhanced post-operative prognoses after tumour-resection surgeries in rats. Continuous recording of near-field action potentials during microsurgeries may allow for the precise identification of neural anatomy through the entire procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

$79.00 per year

only $6.58 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

All data supporting the results in this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. Source data are provided with this paper.

Buckner, J. C. et al. Central nervous system tumors. Mayo Clin. Proc. 82, 1271–1286 (2007).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Horbinski, C., Berger, T., Packer, R. J. & Wen, P. Y. Clinical implications of the 2021 edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumours. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 18, 515–529 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Miller, K. D. et al. Brain and other central nervous system tumor statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 381–406 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Carlson, M. L. & Link, M. J. Vestibular schwannomas. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1335–1348 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Goldbrunner, R. et al. EANO guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of vestibular schwannoma. Neuro Oncol. 22, 31–45 (2020).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Sanai, N. & Berger, M. S. Surgical oncology for gliomas: the state of the art. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 112–125 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Lapointe, S., Perry, A. & Butowski, N. A. Primary brain tumours in adults. Lancet 392, 432–446 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Betka, J. et al. Complications of microsurgery of vestibular schwannoma. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 315952 (2014).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hirbe, A. C. & Gutmann, D. H. Neurofibromatosis type 1: a multidisciplinary approach to care. Lancet Neurol. 13, 834–843 (2014).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Gonzalez, A. A., Jeyanandarajan, D., Hansen, C., Zada, G. & Hsieh, P. C. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery: a review. Neurosurg. Focus 27, E6 (2009).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Rho, Y. J., Rhim, S. C. & Kang, J. K. Is intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring valuable predicting postoperative neurological recovery? Spinal Cord 54, 1121–1126 (2016).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Liu, Y. et al. Intraoperative monitoring of neuromuscular function with soft, skin-mounted wireless devices. NPJ Digit. Med. 1, 19 (2018).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Langguth, B., Kreuzer, P. M., Kleinjung, T. & De Ridder, D. Tinnitus: causes and clinical management. Lancet Neurol. 12, 920–930 (2013).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Watanabe, N. et al. Intraoperative cochlear nerve mapping with the mobile cochlear nerve compound action potential tracer in vestibular schwannoma surgery. J. Neurosurg. 130, 1568–1575 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Nakatomi, H. et al. Improved preservation of function during acoustic neuroma surgery. J. Neurosurg. 122, 24–33 (2015).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Piccirillo, E. et al. Intraoperative cochlear nerve monitoring in vestibular schwannoma surgery—does it really affect hearing outcome? Audiol. Neurootol. 13, 58–64 (2008).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Legatt, A. D. Electrophysiology of cranial nerve testing: auditory nerve. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 35, 25–38 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Yamakami, I., Yoshinori, H., Saeki, N., Wada, M. & Oka, N. Hearing preservation and intraoperative auditory brainstem response and cochlear nerve compound action potential monitoring in the removal of small acoustic neurinoma via the retrosigmoid approach. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 80, 218–227 (2009).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Yamakami, I., Oka, N. & Yamaura, A. Intraoperative monitoring of cochlear nerve compound action potential in cerebellopontine angle tumour removal. J. Clin. Neurosci. 10, 567–570 (2003).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

O’Doherty, J. E. et al. Active tactile exploration using a brain–machine–brain interface. Nature 479, 228–231 (2011).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Betzel, R. F. et al. Structural, geometric and genetic factors predict interregional brain connectivity patterns probed by electrocorticography. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 902–916 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Miyazaki, H. & Caye-Thomasen, P. Intraoperative auditory system monitoring. Adv. Otorhinolaryngol. 81, 123–132 (2018).

PubMed Google Scholar

Khodagholy, D. et al. Organic electronics for high-resolution electrocorticography of the human brain. Sci. Adv. 2, e1601027 (2016).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Jain, P. et al. Intra-operative cortical motor mapping using subdural grid electrodes in children undergoing epilepsy surgery evaluation and comparison with the conventional extra-operative motor mapping. Clin. Neurophysiol. 129, 2642–2649 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Sarnthein, J. et al. Evaluation of a new cortical strip electrode for intraoperative somatosensory monitoring during perirolandic brain surgery. Clin. Neurophysiol. 142, 44–51 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Yuk, H., Lu, B. & Zhao, X. Hydrogel bioelectronics. Chem. Soc. Rev. 48, 1642–1667 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Paulsen, B. D., Tybrandt, K., Stavrinidou, E. & Rivnay, J. Organic mixed ionic-electronic conductors. Nat. Mater. 19, 13–26 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Helbing, D. L., Schulz, A. & Morrison, H. Pathomechanisms in schwannoma development and progression. Oncogene 39, 5421–5429 (2020).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ammoun, S. & Hanemann, C. O. Emerging therapeutic targets in schwannomas and other merlin-deficient tumors. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 7, 392–399 (2011).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Matthies, C. & Samii, M. Management of 1000 vestibular schwannomas (acoustic neuromas): clinical presentation. Neurosurgery 40, 1–10 (1997).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kirchmann, M. et al. Ten-year follow-up on tumor growth and hearing in patients observed with an intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma. Neurosurgery 80, 49–56 (2017).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Propp, J. M., McCarthy, B. J., Davis, F. G. & Preston-Martin, S. Descriptive epidemiology of vestibular schwannomas. Neuro Oncol. 8, 1–11 (2006).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Deletis, V., Shils, J., Sala, F. & Seidel, K. Neurophysiology in Neurosurgery: A Modern Approach 2nd edn (Elsevier, 2020).

Rampp, S., Rahne, T., Plontke, S. K., Strauss, C. & Prell, J. Intraoperative monitoring of cochlear nerve function during cerebello-pontine angle surgery. HNO 65, 413–418 (2017).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Akil, O., Oursler, A. E., Fan, K. & Lustig, L. R. Mouse auditory brainstem response testing. Bio Protoc. 6, e1768 (2016).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Møller, A. R. Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring 3rd edn (Springer, 2011).

Ochal-Choinska, A., Lachowska, M., Kurczak, K. & Niemczyk, K. Audiologic prognostic factors for hearing preservation following vestibular schwannoma surgery. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 28, 747–757 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Zhou, W. et al. A novel imaging grading biomarker for predicting hearing loss in acoustic neuromas. Clin. Neuroradiol. 31, 599–610 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Someya, T., Bao, Z. & Malliaras, G. G. The rise of plastic bioelectronics. Nature 540, 379–385 (2016).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Liu, Y. et al. Soft and elastic hydrogel-based microelectronics for localized low-voltage neuromodulation. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 58–68 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Khodagholy, D. et al. NeuroGrid: recording action potentials from the surface of the brain. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 310–315 (2015).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Jiang, Y. et al. Topological supramolecular network enabled high-conductivity, stretchable organic bioelectronics. Science 375, 1411–1417 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Yamakami, I., Ito, S. & Higuchi, Y. Retrosigmoid removal of small acoustic neuroma: curative tumor removal with preservation of function. J. Neurosurg. 121, 554–563 (2014).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Lacour, S. P., Chan, D., Wagner, S., Li, T. & Suo, Z. Mechanisms of reversible stretchability of thin metal films on elastomeric substrates. Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 204103 (2006).

Article Google Scholar

Gao, X. et al. Anti-VEGF treatment improves neurological function and augments radiation response in NF2 schwannoma model. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14676–14681 (2015).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wu, L. et al. Losartan prevents tumor-induced hearing loss and augments radiation efficacy in NF2 schwannoma rodent models. Sci. Transl. Med. 13, 4816 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

de Medinaceli, L., Freed, W. J. & Wyatt, R. J. An index of the functional condition of rat sciatic nerve based on measurements made from walking tracks. Exp. Neurol. 77, 634–643 (1982).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Leong, S. C. & Lesser, T. H. A national survey of facial paralysis on the quality of life of patients with acoustic neuroma. Otol. Neurotol. 36, 503–509 (2015).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Owusu, J. A., Stewart, C. M. & Boahene, K. Facial nerve paralysis. Med. Clin. North Am. 102, 1135–1143 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Abramson, A. et al. A flexible electronic strain sensor for the real-time monitoring of tumor regression. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn6550 (2022).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Park, C. et al. Protective effect of baicalein on oxidative stress-induced DNA damage and apoptosis in RT4-D6P2T Schwann cells. Int. J. Med. Sci. 16, 8–16 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wong, H. K. et al. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies as a novel therapeutic approach to treating neurofibromatosis-related tumors. Cancer Res. 70, 3483–3493 (2010).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82071996). Part of the work was supported by the Wu Tsai Neuroscience Institute at Stanford University. Part of this work was performed at the Stanford Nano Shared Facilities (SNSF), supported by the National Science Foundation under award ECCS-2026822. We thank G. Jia and Z. Xue for administrative support; L. Yang for instrument support of CINM measurements; and D. Zhang, C. Zhang, X. Wang and Y. Wang for guidance with the project.

These authors contributed equally: Wenjianlong Zhou, Yuanwen Jiang.

Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Wenjianlong Zhou, Qin Xu, Liangpeng Chen, Yuan Zhang, Xiudong Guan, Shunchang Ma, Peng Kang, Linhao Yuan, Deling Li & Wang Jia

Department of Chemical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Yuanwen Jiang, Jian-Cheng Lai, Donglai Zhong, Jeffrey B.-H. Tok & Zhenan Bao

Department of Neurophysiology, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Hui Qiao

Tianjin Key Laboratory of Molecular Optoelectronic Sciences, Department of Chemistry, School of Science, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

Yi-Xuan Wang

Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Weining Li, Xuecheng Wang, Jiaxin Lei & Milin Zhang

Department of Pathology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Yanru Du & Gehong Dong

Department of Neurotomy, Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Shunchang Ma & Wang Jia

China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases (NCRC-ND), Beijing, China

Deling Li & Wang Jia

Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Deling Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

W.Z., Y.J., D.L., Z.B. and W.J. designed the study. Y.J., J.-C.L., D.Z. and Y.-X.W. performed material synthesis and characterizations. W.Z., Q.X., L.C., H.Q., Y.Z., W.L., X.W., J.L., X.G., S.M., P.K., L.Y. and M.Z. performed the animal experiments and cell culture. Y.D. and G.D. performed the histological staining. W.Z., Y.J., J.B.-H.T., D.L. and Z.B. wrote the manuscript with input from all co-authors.

Correspondence to Deling Li, Zhenan Bao or Wang Jia.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Nature Biomedical Engineering thanks Nick Donaldson, Peter Nakaji and Bozhi Tian for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The PEDOT device was implanted in a human cadaver skull via retrosigmoid approach from superior view of axial cross section. CN V: Trigeminal nerve; CN VII-VIII: Facial-acoustic nerve complex.

a, Schematic showing the relevant microanatomy of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA). b-c, Schematic (b) and MRI image (c) showing the effect of tumour growth on the adjacent cranial nerves, the brainstem, and the cerebellum. VS characteristically arise within the internal auditory canal, from one of the two vestibular divisions of the vestibulocochlear nerve. CN V: Trigeminal nerve; CN VII-VIII: Facial-acoustic nerve complex; CN IX-XI: Glossopharyngeal nerve, vagus nerve and accessory nerve.

a-c, A linear, vertically oriented occipital incision was used in the surgery. d, After removing the bone, the dura was exposed. e, The dura was then opened, exposing the facial-acoustic nerve complex with the cerebellum retracted. f, Soft PEDOT electrodes were wrapped around the facial-acoustic nerve complex for subsequent neurophysiological monitoring. CN VII-VIII: Facial-acoustic nerve complex.

Three groups of unidentified nerves were exposed after retracting the cerebellum of an anesthetized rabbit. Soft PEDOT electrodes were wrapped around each visible nerve for facial-acoustic nerve complex identification. Electromyography (EMG, 1 mA, single stimulation) was used in CN V, CN VII and CN XI identification, cochlear nerve action potentials (CNAP) was used in CN VIII identification. The P values for comparison of the amplitudes are as follows: for the CN V (n = 3 rabbits), P < 0.001 compared with the rest; for the CN VII (n = 3 rabbits), P < 0.001 compared with the rest; for the CN VIII (n = 3 rabbits), P < 0.001 compared with the rest; for the CN XI (n = 3 rabbits), P < 0.001 compared with the rest. All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used. CN V: Trigeminal nerve; CN VII-VIII: Facial-acoustic nerve complex; CN IX-XI: Lower cranial nerves (Glossopharyngeal nerve, vagus nerve and accessory nerve).

Source data

a, Photos of the PEDOT (left) and Au (left) electrodes wrapped around the facial-cochlear nerve complex for CNAP recording. b, CNAP values were measured from the PEDOT (up) and Au (down) device. c, PEDOT electrode could consistently record higher CNAP amplitudes than those from the Au electrode. (n = 11 nerves, P < 0.001). All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for c. CN VII-VIII: Facial-acoustic nerve complex.

Source data

a, Schematic and variation of cochlear nerve action potentials (CNAP) waveforms measured by PEDOT electrodes during nerve tugging. * denotes the time point of nerve tugging. b, Schematic and variation of CNAP waveforms measured by Au during nerve tugging. * denotes the time point of nerve tugging. c, Comparison of response latencies of CNAP recorded by PEDOT or Au electrodes during nerve tugging. (n = 4 rabbits, P = 0.427). d, Comparison of recovery latencies of CNAP recorded by Au or PEDOT electrodes during nerve tugging. (n = 4 rabbits, P < 0.001). e, Percentage of CNAP amplitude after physical nerve tugging recorded by Au or PEDOT electrodes. (n = 4 rabbits, P < 0.001). All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for c-e. Schematics in a and b were created with BioRender.com.

Source data

a-b, Comparison of brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP) amplitude (a) and latency (b) with and without soft PEDOT electrodes wrapping. P values for comparing the BAEP amplitudes and latencies are as follows: I, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) vs post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.549; II, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.025; III, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.742; IV, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P < 0.001; V, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.258; 0 - I, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.676; I - II, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.076; II - III, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.299; III - IV, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.035; IV - V, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 6 rabbits), P = 0.154. c-d, Comparison of BAEP amplitude (c) and latency (d) with and without rigid electrodes wrapping. P values for comparing the BAEP amplitudes and latencies are as follows: I, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.005; II, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P < 0.001; III, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.058; IV, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P < 0.001; V, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.002; 0 - I, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P < 0.001; I - II, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P < 0.001; II - III, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P < 0.001; III - IV, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.987; IV - V, pre-operation (n = 8 rabbits) versus post-operation (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.236. e, Comparison of BAEP amplitude with soft PEDOT electrodes wrapping and with rigid electrodes wrapping. P values for comparing the BAEP amplitudes are as follows: I, PEDOT electrodes (n = 6 rabbits) versus rigid electrodes (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.049; II, PEDOT electrodes (n = 6 rabbits) versus rigid electrodes (n = 8 rabbits), P < 0.001; III, PEDOT electrodes (n = 6 rabbits) versus rigid electrodes (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.206; IV, PEDOT electrodes (n = 6 rabbits) versus rigid electrodes (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.820; V, PEDOT electrodes (n = 6 rabbits) versus rigid electrodes (n = 8 rabbits), P = 0.009. All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; NS, not significant; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for a-e. I: wave I – potentials in the auditory nerve (distal part); II: wave II – potentials at proximal part of cochlear nucleus; III: wave III – potentials at lower pons, superior olivary nucleus; IV: wave IV - potentials at upper pons; V: wave V - potentials at lower midbrain.

Source data

a, Schematic of the biocompatibility study and longitudinal-section slice of sciatic nerve labelled by the inflammatory biomarker ER-HR3 for soft PEDOT, rigid and sham control. Soft PEDOT electrodes or rigid electrodes were wrapped around the sciatic nerve of the rats for 2 weeks, respectively. b, Histogram showing the mean fluorescence intensity of ER-HR3 for soft PEDOT, rigid and sham control (n = 4 nerves). The P values for comparison of the ER-HR3 intensities are as follows: for sham and the soft PEDOT electrodes, P < 0.001; for sham and the rigid electrodes, P < 0.001. for soft PEDOT and rigid electrodes, P < 0.001. All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for b. Schematics in a were created with BioRender.com.

Source data

a-f, Photos of the same rabbit sciatic nerve under various degrees of sharp damage using micro-scissors and corresponding evoked Electromyography (EMG) signals. g, Comparison of evoked EMG amplitudes with soft PEDOT electrodes under various degrees of sharp damage. P values for comparing the EMG amplitudes are as follows: G 0 (n = 4 nerves) versus G I (n = 4 nerves), P = 0.007; G I (n = 4 nerves) versus G II (n = 4 nerves), P = 0.005; G II (n = 4 nerves) versus G III (n = 4 nerves), P = 0.007; G III (n = 4 nerves) versus G IV (n = 4 nerves), P = 0.011; h, Amplitudes of Brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP) and CNAP under various degrees of cochlear nerve damage. CNAP was recorded from soft PEDOT electrodes wrapping around the nerve. P values for comparing the amplitudes are as follows: CNAP: No damage (n = 4 nerves) versus Severe damage (n = 4 nerves), P < 0.001; BAEP (V I): No damage (n = 4 nerves) versus Severe damage (n = 4 nerves), P < 0.001; BAEP (V I): No damage (n = 4 nerves) versus Severe damage (n = 4 nerves), P < 0.001. All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; paired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for g; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for h.

Source data

a, Schematic of neural stimulation for facial nerve evaluation. b-c, Schematic and evoked electromyography (EMG) waveforms by stimulating the facial nerves using PEDOT electrodes (b) and commercial metal electrodes (c) at 4 mA. d, Comparison of evoked EMG amplitudes by PEDOT electrodes and conventional metal electrodes at 4 mA (n = 9 nerves, P < 0.001). All error bars denote s.d. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; unpaired, two-tailed student’s t-test was used for d. Schematics in a, b and c were created with BioRender.com.

Source data

Supplementary Figs. 1–12, Table 1 and video captions.

BAEP monitoring.

CNAP monitoring.

Comparison of response (recovery) latency between BAEP and CNAP signals under single cochlear nerve tugging.

The slow response and long recovery latency of BAEP signals under repeated nerve tugging.

Temporal cochlear nerve tugging under continuous CNAP monitoring.

Gait study of sciatic nerve schwannoma model.

Gait comparison between rat monitored with PEDOT electrodes and commercial metal electrodes.

Electrical stimulations with PEDOT electrodes.

Comparison of electrical-stimulation efficiency between soft PEDOT electrodes and conventional metal electrodes.

Statistical source data.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

Zhou, W., Jiang, Y., Xu, Q. et al. Soft and stretchable organic bioelectronics for continuous intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during microsurgery. Nat. Biomed. Eng (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-023-01069-3

Download citation

Received: 25 July 2022

Accepted: 23 June 2023

Published: 03 August 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-023-01069-3

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative