LAUSR

Biocompatibility of cutting‐edge neural implants, surgical tools and techniques, and therapeutic technologies is a challenging concept that can be easily misjudged. For example, neural interfaces are routinely gauged on how effectively they determine active neurons near their recording sites. Tissue integration and toxicity of neural interfaces are frequently assessed histologically in animal models to determine tissue morphological and cellular changes in response to surgical implantation and chronic presence. A disconnect between histological and efficacious biocompatibility exists, however, as neuronal numbers frequently observed near electrodes do not match recorded neuronal spiking activity. The downstream effects of the myriad surgical and experimental factors involved in such studies are rarely examined when deciding whether a technology or surgical process is biocompatible. Such surgical factors as anesthesia, temperature excursions, bleed incidence, mechanical forces generated, and metabolic conditions are known to have strong systemic and thus local cellular and extracellular consequences. Many tissue markers are extremely sensitive to the physiological state of cells and tissues, thus significantly impacting histological accuracy. This review aims to shed light on commonly overlooked factors that can have a strong impact on the assessment of neural biocompatibility and to address the mismatch between results stemming from functional and histological methods.