Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions considering cochlear geometric factors

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.

Continue reading at PubMed →

Results may inform surgical decision-making regarding robotic-assisted cochlear implant insertion, but adoption should be weighed against the level of evidence and cochlear geometric variability; no practice change is warranted until larger prospective studies confirm an advantage.

Minimizing intracochlear trauma during electrode insertion is critical to preserving residual hearing, and robotic assistance is a fast-evolving area that could reshape cochlear implant surgery.

1. 01Study compares intracochlear trauma from robotic-assisted versus manual cochlear implant electrode insertions.
2. 02Cochlear geometric factors (e.g., size and curvature) are incorporated as variables.
3. 03Outcome measures likely include scala tympani positioning, basilar membrane trauma, and tip fold-over rates.
4. 04Findings contribute to the evidence base for robotic surgical tools in cochlear implantation.
5. 05Patient cochlear anatomy variability may influence which insertion method is safer.

PMID

42828715

DOI

10.1007/s00405-026-10613-1.

Journal

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Publication type

research_article

Evidence level

3

Population

Cochlear implant recipients or cadaveric/temporal bone models with varied cochlear geometry

Intervention

Robotic-assisted cochlear implant electrode array insertion

Comparator

Manual cochlear implant electrode array insertion