European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions considering cochlear geometric factors.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Andersson Anni, Geiger Stephan, Iso-Mustajärvi Matti Pekka, Julkunen Petro, Nauwelaers Tim, Dietz Aarno
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Purpose of the present study was to compare the intracochlear trauma coincidentally caused by robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions in human temporal bones, and to evaluate the influence of cochlear geometry on insertion outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty human temporal bones, paired according to cochlear size, underwent round window insertion with a HiFocus SlimJ array, either manually or using the iotaSOFT® insertion system. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCTs) and micro-CTs were used to measure angular insertion depth (AID) and cochlear dimensions, and to assess electrode scalar location to define the level of trauma. Additionally, a cochlea implant imaging tool was used to measure lateral scala tympani height and estimate angular insertion depth.
RESULTS: No scalar translocation occurred in the robotic group, whereas three translocations were found in the manual group. Mean trauma scores were lower for robotic insertions (0.30 ± 0.48) compared with manual insertions (0.89 ± 0.93). Manual insertion produced significantly deeper AID (428 ± 82°) than robotic insertions (304 ± 47°, p = 0.004). The robotic group exhibited significantly more extra-cochlear contacts (2.3 ± 1.8) than the manual group (0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.011). Greater AID correlated with more severe trauma (r = 0.682, p = 0.001). Smaller cochlear dimensions were associated with deeper estimated AID and increased trauma. Lower lateral scala tympani height was found for the translocations compared to non-translocations, indicating an influence on trauma risk.
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted cochlear implantation resulted in less trauma occurrence compared to manual insertion. However, trauma risk was strongly influenced by cochlear geometry and insertion depth. These findings indicate that cochlear geometry is associated with insertion trauma and may support future patient-specific planning and robotic-assisted insertion strategies to reduce trauma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty human temporal bones, paired according to cochlear size, underwent round window insertion with a HiFocus SlimJ array, either manually or using the iotaSOFT® insertion system. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCTs) and micro-CTs were used to measure angular insertion depth (AID) and cochlear dimensions, and to assess electrode scalar location to define the level of trauma. Additionally, a cochlea implant imaging tool was used to measure lateral scala tympani height and estimate angular insertion depth.
RESULTS: No scalar translocation occurred in the robotic group, whereas three translocations were found in the manual group. Mean trauma scores were lower for robotic insertions (0.30 ± 0.48) compared with manual insertions (0.89 ± 0.93). Manual insertion produced significantly deeper AID (428 ± 82°) than robotic insertions (304 ± 47°, p = 0.004). The robotic group exhibited significantly more extra-cochlear contacts (2.3 ± 1.8) than the manual group (0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.011). Greater AID correlated with more severe trauma (r = 0.682, p = 0.001). Smaller cochlear dimensions were associated with deeper estimated AID and increased trauma. Lower lateral scala tympani height was found for the translocations compared to non-translocations, indicating an influence on trauma risk.
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted cochlear implantation resulted in less trauma occurrence compared to manual insertion. However, trauma risk was strongly influenced by cochlear geometry and insertion depth. These findings indicate that cochlear geometry is associated with insertion trauma and may support future patient-specific planning and robotic-assisted insertion strategies to reduce trauma.