Comparative study of vestibular function preservation in manual versus robotic-assisted cochlear implantation.

IF 1.2 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-20 DOI:10.1080/14670100.2023.2271221

Arthur Derieppe, Adrien Gendre, Kinnie Bourget-Aguilar, Philippe Bordure, Guillaume Michel

{"title":"Comparative study of vestibular function preservation in manual versus robotic-assisted cochlear implantation.","authors":"Arthur Derieppe, Adrien Gendre, Kinnie Bourget-Aguilar, Philippe Bordure, Guillaume Michel","doi":"10.1080/14670100.2023.2271221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare vestibular outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) surgery, between robotic-assisted insertion of the electrodes versus manual insertion.Methods: We performed a monocentric retrospective study. From March 2021, the robotic system RobOtol© was used for all CI cases. We compared this robotic-assisted insertion group with a manual insertion group of patients who received a CI between July 2020 and March 2021. Primary objective was vestibular outcome. We used objective vestibular function tests: caloric testing, Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (VEMP), and Video Head Impulse Test (VHIT). Secondary objectives were postoperative complications including patient-reported postoperative vertigo.Results: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of caloric testing, VEMP or VHIT outcomes. In patient-reported outcomes, there was significantly more vertigo in the manual insertion group compared with robotic-assisted insertion.Conclusion: It is hypothesized that a non-traumatic insertion would cause less vestibular dysfunction postoperatively. Larger prospective studies are required to determine whether robotic-assisted CI insertion has a significant impact on vestibular outcomes in CI surgery.","PeriodicalId":53553,"journal":{"name":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","volume":" ","pages":"23-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2023.2271221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare vestibular outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) surgery, between robotic-assisted insertion of the electrodes versus manual insertion.

Methods: We performed a monocentric retrospective study. From March 2021, the robotic system RobOtol© was used for all CI cases. We compared this robotic-assisted insertion group with a manual insertion group of patients who received a CI between July 2020 and March 2021. Primary objective was vestibular outcome. We used objective vestibular function tests: caloric testing, Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (VEMP), and Video Head Impulse Test (VHIT). Secondary objectives were postoperative complications including patient-reported postoperative vertigo.

Results: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of caloric testing, VEMP or VHIT outcomes. In patient-reported outcomes, there was significantly more vertigo in the manual insertion group compared with robotic-assisted insertion.

Conclusion: It is hypothesized that a non-traumatic insertion would cause less vestibular dysfunction postoperatively. Larger prospective studies are required to determine whether robotic-assisted CI insertion has a significant impact on vestibular outcomes in CI surgery.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

人工与机器人辅助人工耳蜗植入中前庭功能保存的比较研究。

目的:比较机器人辅助电极插入与人工电极插入在人工耳蜗植入手术中的前庭预后。方法:我们进行了一项单中心回顾性研究。从2021年3月起，机器人系统RobOtol©用于所有CI案例。我们比较了2020年7月至2021年3月期间接受CI的机器人辅助插入组和手动插入组患者。主要目的是前庭预后。我们使用客观的前庭功能测试:热量测试、前庭诱发肌电位(VEMP)和视频头部脉冲测试(VHIT)。次要目标是术后并发症，包括患者报告的术后眩晕。结果:我们发现两组在热量测试、VEMP或VHIT结果方面无统计学差异。在患者报告的结果中，与机器人辅助插入组相比，手动插入组有更多的眩晕。结论:假设非创伤性插入可减少术后前庭功能障碍。需要更大规模的前瞻性研究来确定机器人辅助CI插入是否对CI手术中前庭预后有显著影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS INTERNATIONAL Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Cochlear Implants International was founded as an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal in response to the growing number of publications in the field of cochlear implants. It was designed to meet a need to include scientific contributions from all the disciplines that are represented in cochlear implant teams: audiology, medicine and surgery, speech therapy and speech pathology, psychology, hearing therapy, radiology, pathology, engineering and acoustics, teaching, and communication. The aim was to found a truly interdisciplinary journal, representing the full breadth of the field of cochlear implantation.