Packaging of the Implant

  • Gürkan YılmazEmail author
  • Catherine Dehollain
Part of the Analog Circuits and Signal Processing book series (ACSP)


Any kind of passive or active device which is to be implanted inside the body must satisfy certain biocompatibility and biosafety requirements and standards. It is worth noting that not harming the patient (primum non nocere) is one of the fundamentals of the medicine and medical sciences. These requirements have been established in years in order to prevent inflicting any damage to the human body. More explicitly, the implant may contain a toxic material which causes a direct damage to the tissues, or the body may refuse the implant even if the implant itself is not toxic, which causes an indirect damage. This refusal is called as foreign body reaction [1], and as a result, the immune system attacks the implant which results in an inflammation or swelling in return. In such cases, the implant should be removed immediately. Therefore, a set of preliminary experiments have to be conducted in order to get an approval. This chapter introduces the regulations and how these regulations are addressed within the frame of this work including a polymer-based packaging, and its modeling in terms of hermetical sealing is presented. Proposed packaging has been tested only for in vitro conditions and requires a detailed characterization to fulfill the requirements of biocompatibility before in vivo experiments.


Parylene-C Hermetical sealing Biocompatibility Polymer packaging Diffusion barrier 


  1. 1.
    J.M. Anderson, A. Rodriguez, D.T. Chang, Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin. Immunol. 20(2), 86–100 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Dy, R. Vos, Jens Rip, A. La Manna, M.O. de Beeck, Biocompatibility assessment of advanced wafer-level based chip encapsulation, in Electronic System-Integration Technology Conference (ESTC), 2010 3rd (2010), pp. 1–4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Hassler, T. Boretius, T. Stieglitz, Polymers for neural implants. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 49(1), 18–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K.M. Silay, C. Dehollain, M. Declercq, Inductive power link for a wireless cortical implant with two-body packaging. Sens. J. IEEE 11(11), 2825–2833 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Yilmaz, O. Atasoy, C. Dehollain, Wireless energy and data transfer for in-vivo epileptic focus localization. Sens. J. IEEE 13(11), 4172–4179 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.-J. Senkevich, P.-I. Wang, Molecular layer chemistry via parylenes. Chem. Vapor Depos. 15(4–6), 91–94 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.A. Spivack, G. Ferrante, Determination of the water vapor permeability and continuity of ultrathin parylene membranes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 116(11), 1592–1594 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Devanathan, R. Carr, Polymeric confonnal coatings for implantable electronic devices. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 27(11), 671–674 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Yilmaz, O. Atasoy, C. Dehollain, Wireless Data and Power Transmission Aiming Intracranial Epilepsy Monitoring, vol. 8765 (2013), pp. 87650D–87650D-8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.D. Wolf, Thermal considerations for the design of an implanted cortical brainmachine interface (BMI), in Indwelling Neural Implants: Strategies for Contending with the in vivo Environment, ed. by W.M. Reichert (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Wattanapanitch, M. Fee, R. Sarpeshkar, An energy-efficient micropower neural recording amplifier. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 1(2), 136–147 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Holleman, B. Otis, A sub-microwatt low-noise amplifier for neural recording, in 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2007. EMBS 2007 (2007), pp. 3930–3933Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.R. Harrison, P.T. Watkins, R.J. Kier, R.O. Lovejoy, D.J. Black, B. Greger, F. Solzbacher, A low-power integrated circuit for a wireless 100-electrode neural recording system. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 42(1), 123–133 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Sarpeshkar, W. Wattanapanitch, B.I Rapoport, S.K. Arfin, M.W. Baker, S. Mandal, M.S. Fee, S. Musallam, R.A Andersen, Low-power circuits for brain-machine interfaces, in IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2007. ISCAS 2007 (2007), pp. 2068–2071Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.K. RamRakhyani, S. Mirabbasi, M. Chiao, Design and optimization of resonance-based efficient wireless power delivery systems for biomedical implants. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 5(1), 48–63 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Kiani, U.-M. Jow, M. Ghovanloo, Design and optimization of a 3-coil inductive link for efficient wireless power transmission. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 5(6), 579–591 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.M. Silay, C. Dehollain, M. Declercq, Numerical analysis of temperature elevation in the head due to power dissipation in a cortical implant, in Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. EMBS 2008. 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE (2008), pp. 951–956Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Kim, P. Tathireddy, R.A. Normann, F. Solzbacher, Thermal impact of an active 3-d microelectrode array implanted in the brain. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15(4), 493–501 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EPFL RFIC Research GroupLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations