Robotic Versus Manual Electrode Insertion in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Experimental Study.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.21053/ceo.2024.00253

Salman F Alhabib, Farid Alzhrani, Abdulrahman Alsanosi, Mariam Al-Amro, Abdulaziz Alballaa, Ibrahim Shami, Abdulrahman Hagr, Asma Alahmadi, Tahir Sharif, Maximilian Stichling, Marco Matulic, Masoud Zoka Assadi, Yassin Abdelsamad, Fida Almuhawas

{"title":"Robotic Versus Manual Electrode Insertion in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Experimental Study.","authors":"Salman F Alhabib, Farid Alzhrani, Abdulrahman Alsanosi, Mariam Al-Amro, Abdulaziz Alballaa, Ibrahim Shami, Abdulrahman Hagr, Asma Alahmadi, Tahir Sharif, Maximilian Stichling, Marco Matulic, Masoud Zoka Assadi, Yassin Abdelsamad, Fida Almuhawas","doi":"10.21053/ceo.2024.00253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This experimental study compares the precision and surgical outcomes of manual versus robotic electrode insertions in cochlear implantation.Methods: Conducted on formalin-fixed cadaveric heads, the study involved nine senior neurotologists performing both manual and robotic insertions.Results: The results showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods in insertion angle, cochlear coverage, or electrode coverage. However, the robotic method demonstrated a significantly slower and more controlled insertion speed (0.1 mm/s) than manual insertion (0.66 ± 0.31 mm/s), crucial for minimizing intra-cochlear force and pressures. While robotic insertions had fewer complications, such as tip fold-over or scala deviation, there were instances of incomplete insertion.Conclusion: The robotic system provided a consistent and controlled insertion process, potentially standardizing cochlear implant surgeries and mitigating outcome variability. The study concludes that robotic-assisted insertion offers significant advantages in controlling insertion speed and consistency, supporting the continued development and clinical evaluation of robotic systems for cochlear implant surgeries.","PeriodicalId":10318,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2024.00253","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This experimental study compares the precision and surgical outcomes of manual versus robotic electrode insertions in cochlear implantation.

Methods: Conducted on formalin-fixed cadaveric heads, the study involved nine senior neurotologists performing both manual and robotic insertions.

Results: The results showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods in insertion angle, cochlear coverage, or electrode coverage. However, the robotic method demonstrated a significantly slower and more controlled insertion speed (0.1 mm/s) than manual insertion (0.66 ± 0.31 mm/s), crucial for minimizing intra-cochlear force and pressures. While robotic insertions had fewer complications, such as tip fold-over or scala deviation, there were instances of incomplete insertion.

Conclusion: The robotic system provided a consistent and controlled insertion process, potentially standardizing cochlear implant surgeries and mitigating outcome variability. The study concludes that robotic-assisted insertion offers significant advantages in controlling insertion speed and consistency, supporting the continued development and clinical evaluation of robotic systems for cochlear implant surgeries.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

人工耳蜗植入手术中机器人与人工电极插入的实验研究。

目的：本实验研究比较人工电极与机器人电极在人工耳蜗植入中的植入精度和手术效果。方法：对福尔马林固定的尸体头部进行研究，九名高级神经学家进行手动和机器人插入。结果：两种方法在植入角度、耳蜗覆盖范围、电极覆盖范围等方面均无统计学差异。然而，与人工插入（0.66±0.31 mm/s）相比，机器人方法的插入速度（0.1 mm/s）明显更慢，更可控，这对于最小化耳蜗内力和压力至关重要。虽然机器人插入的并发症较少，如尖端折叠或scala偏差，但也有插入不完全的情况。结论：机器人系统提供了一个一致和可控的植入过程，有可能使人工耳蜗手术标准化，并减轻结果的可变性。研究认为，机器人辅助植入在控制植入速度和一致性方面具有显著优势，为人工耳蜗植入手术机器人系统的持续发展和临床评估提供了支持。

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

Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology 医学-耳鼻喉科学

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

6.70%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology (Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol, CEO) is an international peer-reviewed journal on recent developments in diagnosis and treatment of otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery and dedicated to the advancement of patient care in ear, nose, throat, head, and neck disorders. This journal publishes original articles relating to both clinical and basic researches, reviews, and clinical trials, encompassing the whole topics of otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery. CEO was first issued in 2008 and this journal is published in English four times (the last day of February, May, August, and November) per year by the Korean Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The Journal aims at publishing evidence-based, scientifically written articles from different disciplines of otorhinolaryngology field. The readership contains clinical/basic research into current practice in otorhinolaryngology, audiology, speech pathology, head and neck oncology, plastic and reconstructive surgery. The readers are otolaryngologists, head and neck surgeons and oncologists, audiologists, and speech pathologists.