Implantation strategies (geometry, workflow, and failure modes)
Device design and implantation strategy are inseparable. Two identical devices can have different outcomes depending on how they are placed, how they are routed, and how they experience motion.
This chapter is about “implantation as engineering”: geometry, workflow, failure modes, and why complex implantation methods are not just surgical bravado—they are sometimes required to satisfy mechanical constraints.
Geometry is not optional
In peripheral nerve, the nerve moves. In cortex, tissue moves relative to skull-fixed anchors. In both cases, if you don’t control geometry, biology will.
Implantation strategy is how you decide:
- where the device sits,
- how it is anchored,
- where strain accumulates,
- and how the system behaves during everyday motion.
Complex implantation methods: why they might be necessary
Complexity may be justified if it reduces chronic risk:
- distributing strain rather than concentrating it,
- avoiding chronic compression,
- routing leads to minimize fatigue,
- improving repeatability and alignment.
Workflow is a constraint
If a device requires an unrealistic workflow, it will not translate. A good implantation plan is:
- repeatable,
- tolerant to anatomical variability,
- and compatible with real surgical time and tools.
References (starter)
- Surgical workflow context (general implant concepts): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implant_(medicine)
(We’ll add peripheral nerve implant technique reviews and chronic failure analyses next.)