Robot-assisted vs. manual cochlear implant electrode array insertion in four children.

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

Department of Audiovestibology, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Via Lazio, 21100, Varese, VA, Italy.

Published: January 2025

AI Article Synopsis

Article Abstract

Purpose: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of a robotic electrode insertion in pediatric cochlear implantation and compare the results with manually inserted electrodes in the same subject.

Methods: Retrospective case series review of four children who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation with the same array: on one side, the array was inserted using the robot, while on the other side the array was inserted manually. Behavioural and electrophysiological measures were compared.

Results: The duration of surgery when the robot was adopted was significantly longer than when a manual insertion was performed (161.15 ± 27.59 minutes vs. 122.6 ± 37.71 min, paired t-test: p = 0.029). Moreover, robotic electrode insertion was significantly slower (average insertion speed 0.3 mm/second vs. 0.52 ± 0.17 mm/s, paired t-test: p = 0.0055). On radiologic examination, none of the arrays was misplaced. Impedance, both at activation and at one year of cochlear implant use, was significantly lower on the robotic side in monopolar mode compared to the manual side (mean 9.64 ± 2.41kΩ and 9.97 ± 1.39 kΩ vs. 10.43 ± 2.69 kΩ and 10.94 ± 1.11 kΩ, paired t test, p = 0.0251 and p = 0.0061, respectively). Both the threshold stimulation level and the most comfortable loud stimulation level were significantly lower in the robotic inserted ear compared to the manually inserted ear (mean 108.1 ± 5.98 and 169 ± 4.84 vs. 112.1 ± 7.43 and 172.7 ± 6.83, respectively, paired t test p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Although we present a small group of cases, our results show how robot-based array insertion is associated with lower impedance and stimulation levels compared to manually inserted arrays.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-09195-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cochlear implant
8
robotic electrode
8
electrode insertion
8
cochlear implantation
8
manually inserted
8
side array
8
array inserted
8
paired t-test
8
lower robotic
8
paired test
8

Similar Publications

Purpose: Cochlear implants (CI) are the most successful bioprosthesis in medicine probably due to the tonotopic anatomy of the auditory pathway and of course the brain plasticity. Correct placement of the CI arrays, respecting the inner ear anatomy are therefore important. The ideal trajectory to insert a cochlear implant array is defined by an entrance through the round window membrane and continues as long as possible parallel to the basal turn of the cochlea.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Robot-assisted vs. manual cochlear implant electrode array insertion in four children.

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

January 2025

Department of Audiovestibology, ASST dei Sette Laghi, Via Lazio, 21100, Varese, VA, Italy.

Purpose: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of a robotic electrode insertion in pediatric cochlear implantation and compare the results with manually inserted electrodes in the same subject.

Methods: Retrospective case series review of four children who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation with the same array: on one side, the array was inserted using the robot, while on the other side the array was inserted manually. Behavioural and electrophysiological measures were compared.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Speech Perception in Noise After Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

January 2025

Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Importance: There is a lack of high level of evidence studies comparing the effect of different treatment options for single-sided deafness (SSD).

Objective: To determine the effect of a cochlear implant (CI), bone conduction device (BCD), contralateral routing of signals hearing aid (CROS), and no treatment on speech perception in noise outcomes in patients with SSD.

Design, Setting, And Participants: In this single-center randomized clinical trial, adult patients with SSD were randomized into 3 groups: CI; a trial period with first a BCD on a headband and then a CROS; or a trial period with first a CROS and then a BCD on a headband.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

When listening to speech under adverse conditions, listeners compensate using neurocognitive resources. A clinically relevant form of adverse listening is listening through a cochlear implant (CI), which provides a spectrally degraded signal. CI listening is often simulated through noise-vocoding.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Pediatric cochlear implant (CI) recipients with cochlear malformations face challenges due to variable speech recognition outcomes.

Aims/objectives: This study assesses the predictive value of intraoperative electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) thresholds, residual hearing, age at implantation, Intelligent Quotient (IQ), and malformation type for speech recognition outcomes.

Material And Methods: A prospective cohort of 52 children (aged 1-4 years) with cochlear malformations who underwent CI between 2016 and 2024 was analyzed.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!