[en] ("[en] INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implants (CIs) are commonly used for the rehabilitation of profound bilateral hearing loss. However, patients with substantial residual acoustic hearing are potential CI candidates. Because of both improvements in technology and advancements in surgical techniques, it may be possible to preserve hearing to some extent. For more than a decade, it has been suggested that robots are used to perform middle ear surgery. We evaluated the use of the RobOtol® otologic robot specifically to insert CI electrodes into the inner ear.
METHODS: CI surgery with the conventional approach was performed under general anesthesia. The MED-El Flex 24-electrode array was inserted using RobOtol®. Video recordings were used to calculate the speed of insertion. The positions of the electrodes were evaluated using a cone beam CT. All subjects underwent pure-tone audiometry tests before and after surgery, and the pure-tone average (PTA) was calculated from 250 to 4,000 Hz.
RESULTS: The robot inserted implants in 5 patients, and complete insertion of the electrode array was achieved. The speed of insertion of the electrode array was 0.88 ± 0.12 mm/s. The mean loss of the PTA for 5 frequencies (250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 Hz) was 13.60 ± 7.70 dB. Only 1 patient showed a loss of the PTA by >20 dB. For these 5 patients, the cone beam CT findings showed that all the electrode arrays were in the tympanic ramp and had a grade of 0. The results were compared with those obtained from a cohort of 17 patients who underwent manual implantation of a MED-El Flex 24-electrode array.
CONCLUSION: To minimize disturbance to the cochlea while atraumatic electrode arrays are inserted, electrodes can be inserted at a constant, slow speed in the inner ear with the assistance of the RobOtol® robot in a normal clinical surgical setting.","[en] ","")
Disciplines :
Otolaryngology
Author, co-author :
Barriat, Sébastien ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service d'ORL, d'audiophonologie et de chir. cervico-faciale
Peigneux, Nicolas ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service d'ORL, d'audiophonologie et de chir. cervico-faciale
DURAN, Unal ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service médical de radiodiagnostic
Camby, Séverine ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service de chirurgie plastique et maxillo-faciale
Lefèbvre, Philippe ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service d'ORL, d'audiophonologie et de chir. cervico-faciale
Language :
English
Title :
The Use of a Robot to Insert an Electrode Array of Cochlear Implants in the Cochlea: A Feasibility Study and Preliminary Results.
Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, Service GJ, Tombers NM, Hughes-Borst BJ, et al. Implications of minimizing trauma during conventional cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2011 Aug; 32(6): 962-8.
Caversaccio M, Wimmer W, Anso J, Mantokoudis G, Gerber N, Rathgeb C, et al. Robotic middle ear access for cochlear implantation: first in man. PLoS One. 2019 Aug; 14(8): e0220543.
Coulson CJ, Taylor RP, Reid AP, Griffiths MV, Proops DW, Brett PN. An autonomous surgical robot for drilling a cochleostomy: preliminary porcine trial. Clin Otolaryngol. 2008 Aug; 33(4): 343-7.
Eshraghi AA, Yang NW, Balkany TJ. Comparative study of cochlear damage with three perimodiolar electrode designs. Laryngoscope. 2003 Mar; 113(3): 415-9.
Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, Sydlowski SA. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear. 2010 Apr; 31(2): 186-94.
Hofer M, Runge A, Haase R, Neumuth T, Maier T, Lueth T, et al. A surgical micromanipulator in ear surgery: potential and comparison to freehand preparation. HNO. 2012 Feb; 60(2): 109-16.
Jiam NT, Jiradejvong P, Pearl MS, Limb CJ. The effect of round window vs cochleostomy surgical approaches on cochlear implant electrode position: a flat-panel computed tomography study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Sep; 142(9): 873-80.
Kontorinis G, Lenarz T, Stöver T, Paasche G. Impact of the insertion speed of cochlear implant electrodes on the insertion forces. Otol Neurotol. 2011 Jun; 32(4): 565-70.
Miroir M, Nguyen Y, Kazmitcheff G, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Grayeli AB. Friction force measurement during cochlear implant insertion: application to a force-controlled insertion tool design. Otol Neurotol. 2012 Aug; 33(6): 1092-100.
Miroir M, Nguyen Y, Szewczyk J, Sterkers O, Bozorg Grayeli A. Design, kinematic optimization, and evaluation of a teleoperated system for middle ear microsurgery. Scientific-WorldJournal. 2012; 2012: 907372.
Naples JG, Ruckenstein MJ. Cochlear implant. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2020 Feb; 53(1): 87-102.
Nguyen Y, Kazmitcheff G, De Seta D, Miroir M, Ferrary E, Sterkers O. Definition of metrics to evaluate cochlear array insertion forces performed with forceps, insertion tool, or motorized tool in temporal bone specimens. Biomed Res Int. 2014 Jul; 2014: 532570.
Rajan GP, Kontorinis G, Kuthubutheen J. The effects of insertion speed on inner ear function during cochlear implantation: a comparison study. Audiol Neurootol. 2013 Sep; 18(1): 17-22.
Schurzig D, Labadie RF, Hussong A, Rau TS, Webster RJ. Design of a tool integrating force sensing with automated insertion in cochlear implantation. IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron. 2012 Apr 1; 17(2): 381-9.
Todt I, Mittmann P, Ernst A. Intracochlear fluid pressure changes related to the insertional speed of a CI electrode. Biomed Res Int. 2014 Jul; 2014: 507241.
Torres R, Jia H, Drouillard M, Bensimon JL, Sterkers O, Ferrary E, et al. An optimized robot-based technique for cochlear implantation to reduce array insertion trauma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Nov; 159(5): 900-7.