Smart Implants and Closed-Loop Systems: The Next Generation of Therapeutic Devices

From adaptive brain stimulators to self-monitoring orthopedic implants, researchers are building intelligent medical devices that sense, decide, and treat, closing the loop between diagnosis and therapy in real time. 

Image credit: Image Point Fr/Shutterstock.com

Introduction

Advances in bioelectronic medicine are enabling smart implants and closed-loop systems that integrate diagnostics and therapy. By coupling advanced sensing technologies with autonomous AI-driven, adaptive control, these systems continuously monitor physiological activity and adapt their function in real time, offering a dynamic and personalized approach to disease management. From deep-brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease to glucose regulation in diabetes and orthopedic rehabilitation, these technologies are transforming healthcare, moving from reactive treatment to predictive, data-driven precision medicine.

Deep-Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease

Since its FDA approval in the late 1990s, deep-brain stimulation (DBS) has become one of the most common surgical treatments for Parkinson’s disease (PD), widely used for patients with advanced motor symptoms^1. The procedure involves implanting electrodes into specific brain regions connected to a pulse generator beneath the collarbone. Electrical impulses alter neural activity, reducing tremors, stiffness, and bradykinesia, and restoring balance to the brain’s electrical circuits.

Traditional DBS delivers constant, uniform pulses that suppress abnormal beta waves but fail to account for symptom fluctuations caused by disease progression, medication cycles, or daily activity. Researchers have developed adaptive or closed-loop DBS systems that adjust stimulation parameters in real time based on neural feedback to address this.

Recent clinical studies, including a 2025 JAMA Neurology trial, have demonstrated that adaptive DBS can dynamically adjust stimulation intensity by continuously measuring beta wave patterns². Comparable closed-loop neurostimulation approaches are also being evaluated in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain, using evoked compound action potential (ECAP) feedback to adjust therapy in real time³.

By maintaining neural oscillations within an optimal range, these systems better mimic natural brain rhythms, enhancing therapeutic efficacy while reducing side effects and power consumption. While these adaptive systems are still emerging, this real-time, feedback-driven approach marks a significant step toward highly personalized neuromodulation for people with PD worldwide.

Closed-Loop Diabetes Management

Closed-loop bioelectronic systems are also transforming chronic disease management, particularly diabetes. These systems monitor biochemical signals, such as glucose levels, and adjust their output to help maintain physiological stability. One approach involves targeting the autonomic nervous system, specifically the vagus nerve, which regulates pancreatic function⁴. Electrical stimulation of this pathway can enhance insulin secretion and glucose use, offering a physiological alternative to traditional insulin therapy. Although this neuromodulatory strategy remains largely experimental, early results suggest that it may complement conventional closed-loop insulin delivery systems. Real-world hybrid closed-loop systems, such as automated insulin pumps linked with continuous glucose monitors, have already shown improved glycemic control and patient well-being over six months of clinical use⁵.

In addition, diabetes-related microvascular damage can elevate intraocular pressure (IOP), leading to glaucoma, a major cause of irreversible blindness⁶. To address this, Kim et al. developed a graphene–silver nanowire sensor integrated into soft contact lenses, enabling wireless, non-invasive monitoring of glucose and IOP⁷. These transparent, stretchable lenses demonstrated success in animal models and in vitro performance, setting a promising direction for minimally invasive, continuous monitoring of metabolic and ocular health. Whilst still preclinical, such integrated systems could enable early detection and intervention, which are key to preventing diabetic complications.

Video credit: breakthroughsforphysicians6444/Youtube.com

Smart Orthopedic Implants

In orthopedics, smart implants enhance diagnostics and rehabilitation by integrating miniature sensors capable of measuring strain, force, pressure, displacement, and temperature within the body. These devices provide continuous in vivo data on implant loading, bone healing, and joint biomechanics, insights previously unattainable through conventional imaging⁸.

Experimental applications are emerging in hip and knee arthroplasty, spinal fusion, and fracture fixation. Smart spinal implants have been used to monitor biomechanical forces during movement, providing quantitative insight into fusion progression. Similarly, fracture fixation implants with strain sensors guide patient-specific rehabilitation, optimizing weight-bearing and reducing mechanical failure risk⁹.

Smart implants offer unique insight into in vivo pathophysiology as diagnostic tools, particularly in complex joint disorders with extra-articular manifestations. Continuous intra-articular pressure and tissue strain data could also contribute to understanding the inflammatory mechanisms underlying systemic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term data from sensor-integrated orthopedic plates have recently demonstrated stable wireless monitoring of bone healing for up to ten years post-implantation, confirming the feasibility of durable, chronic performance¹⁰. Furthermore, recent reviews emphasize that these systems may soon enable personalized joint replacement planning through data-driven implant adaptation¹¹. While many of these innovations are at an early research and development stage, their diagnostic potential could enhance surgical planning, postoperative monitoring, and rehabilitation strategies.

Current Limitations, AI Integration and Future Development

Despite progress, smart implants and closed-loop systems face significant engineering, computational, and security challenges. Miniaturization, water resistance, and biocompatibility remain major obstacles, driving the development of hybrid and nanomaterial-based structures that combine flexibility with long-term durability⁴. Powering is another constraint: conventional batteries limit lifespan and size, prompting advances in wireless power transfer and biofuel cells that convert biochemical energy, such as glucose and oxygen, into electricity^12-14.

Artificial intelligence is becoming vital to managing the complex data these systems generate. Integrated with edge computing, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms, enables real-time analysis and adaptive therapeutic control directly within the implant. This transforms passive devices into intelligent systems capable of predictive, personalized intervention and continuous therapy optimization⁴. However, most AI applications in implantable systems remain at the prototype or early clinical stage, requiring further validation for safety, reproducibility, and regulatory approval¹¹.

However, increased connectivity heightens cybersecurity risks. To address this, researchers at Rice University developed the Magnetoelectric Datagram Transport Layer Security (ME-DTLS) protocol for ultra-miniaturized, battery-free implants. This system uses proximity-based, movement-driven two-factor authentication to prevent remote hacking while maintaining emergency access for clinicians, even without internet connectivity or patient credentials¹⁵. Such protocols are critical to safeguarding sensitive medical data while ensuring accessibility in urgent care.

Future smart implants will be anatomically customized and physiologically adaptive, combining AI, sustainable power systems, and secure communication frameworks. By continuously sensing and responding to the body’s internal environment, these systems hold promise to manage complex diseases, restore function, and enhance systemic health, marking a major leap toward truly integrated, precision medicine.

References and Further Reading

1. Sarica C, Conner CR, Yamamoto K, et al. (2023Trends and disparities in deep brain stimulation utilization in the United States: a Nationwide Inpatient Sample analysis from 1993 to 2017. The Lancet Regional Health - Americas. 26:100599. doi:10.1016/j.lana.2023.100599
2. Bronte-Stewart HM, Beudel M, Ostrem JL, et al. (2025). Long-Term Personalized Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson Disease: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. Published online September 22, doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.2781
3. Mekhail NA, Rosen SM, Vallejo R, et al. (2025). Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvement in chronic pain using evoked compound action potential–controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 50(6):495–505. DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105370
4. Oh S, Jekal J, Liu J, et al. (2024). Bioelectronic Implantable Devices for Physiological Signal Recording and Closed‐Loop Neuromodulation. Adv Funct Materials. 34(41):2403562. doi:10.1002/adfm.202403562
5. Halliday JA, Janevic MR, Martin P, et al. (2024). Six months of hybrid closed-loop therapy improves diabetes-specific positive well-being and treatment satisfaction. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 12(1):e003651.DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2024-004428
6. Hanyuda A, Sawada N, Yuki K, et al. (2020). Relationships of diabetes and hyperglycaemia with intraocular pressure in a Japanese population: the JPHC-NEXT Eye Study. Sci Rep. 10(1):5355. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62135-3
7. Kim J, Kim M, Lee MS, et al. (2017). Wearable smart sensor systems integrated on soft contact lenses for wireless ocular diagnostics. Nat Commun. 8(1):14997. doi:10.1038/ncomms14997
8. Ledet EH, Liddle B, Kradinova K, Harper S. (2018). Smart implants in orthopedic surgery, improving patient outcomes: a review. IEH. 5:41-51. doi:10.2147/IEH.S133518
9. Shah NV, Gold R, Dar QA, Diebo BG, Paulino CB, Naziri Q. (2021). Smart Technology and Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Concepts Regarding the Impact of Smartphones and Wearable Technology on Our Patients and Practice. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 14(6):378-391. doi:10.1007/s12178-021-09723-6
10. Schulz AP, Schmickler S, Bockholt S, et al. (2025). Long-Term Evaluation of Bone Healing Monitoring Using an Instrumented Plate with Measurement Sensors (Smart Implant) over 10 Years. Sensors. 25(18):5779. doi: 10.3390/s25185779
11. Kirolos E. (2023). Smart orthopedic implants: the future of personalized joint replacement and monitoring. J Orthop Transl. 2025;45:100635. doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2025-31-3-388-398
12. Won, S. M.; Cai, L.; Gutruf, P.; Rogers, J. A. Wireless and Battery-Free Technologies for Neuroengineering. Nat. Biomed. Eng, 7 (4), 405–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00683-3.
13. Zebda, A.; Alcaraz, J.-P.; Vadgama, P.; Shleev, S.; Minteer, S. D.; Boucher, F.; Cinquin, P.; Martin, D. K. (2018). Challenges for Successful Implantation of Biofuel Cells. Bioelectrochemistry, 124, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2018.05.011.
14. Zebda, A.; Cosnier, S.; Alcaraz, J.-P.; Holzinger, M.; Le Goff, A.; Gondran, C.; Boucher, F.; Giroud, F.; Gorgy, K.; Lamraoui, H.; Cinquin, P. (2013). Single Glucose Biofuel Cells Implanted in Rats Power Electronic Devices. Sci Rep , 3 (1), 1516. doi: 10.1038/srep01516.
15. Wang W, Su Y, Liao HC, Zou Y, Qiu T, Yang K. (2025). 35.4: A Miniature Biomedical Implant Secured by Two-Factor Authentication with Emergency Access. In: 2025 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC). IEEE; 574-576. doi:10.1109/ISSCC49661.2025.10904583

Last Updated: Oct 27, 2025