Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37892718›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Robot-Assisted and Manual Cochlear Implantation: An Intra-Individual Study of Speech Recognition.

Clémentine Maheo, Antoine Marie, Renato Torres, Jerrid Archutick, Jean-Christophe Leclère, Remi Marianowski

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07081542 (Comparative Analysis of Hearing Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07081542 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Analysis of Hearing Outcomes: Robotic vs. Manual Insertion of Cochlear Implants

TypeinterventionalSponsorAdventHealthRan2026 to 2027Enrolled32ConditionsSensorineural Hearing Loss, Bilateral Hearing Loss, Cochlear Implantation, Hearing DisordersArmsIotaSoft Robotic Insertion System, Manual Cochlear Implant Insertion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Clémentine MaheoDepartment of Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, University Hospital Center, Hospital Morvan, 2 Avenue Foch, 29200 Brest, France.
Antoine MarieDepartment of Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, University Hospital Center, Hospital Morvan, 2 Avenue Foch, 29200 Brest, France.
Renato TorresTechnologies et Theérapie Génique Pour la Surdité, Institut de l'Audition, Institut Pasteur/Université de Paris Cité/INSERM, 63 rue de Charenton, 75012 Paris, France.
Jerrid ArchutickMedicine Department, School of Medicine, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland.
Jean-Christophe LeclèreDepartment of Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, University Hospital Center, Hospital Morvan, 2 Avenue Foch, 29200 Brest, France.
Remi MarianowskiDepartment of Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, University Hospital Center, Hospital Morvan, 2 Avenue Foch, 29200 Brest, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8545-9045
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRInserm · FRUniversity of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear implantation (CI) allows rehabilitation for patients with severe to profound hearing impairment. Although the use of a robotic assistant provides technical assistance to the surgeon, the assessment of the impact of its use on auditory outcomes remains uncertain. We aim to compare the hearing results of patients who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation; one side was performed with manual insertion and the other side with robot-assisted insertion. The electrode array intrascalar positioning and the surgery duration were also studied. This retrospective intra-individual study involved 10 patients who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation. The study included two infants and eight adults. The unique composition of this cohort enabled us to utilize each patient as their own control. Regarding speech disyllabic recognition, pure tone average, ECAP, ratio of array translocation, basilar membrane rupture, and percentage of translocated electrodes, there was no difference between manual and robot-assisted CI groups. This study is the first to compare intra-individual hearing performance after cochlear implantation, either manually or robot-assisted. The number of patients and the time delay between manual and robotic implantation may have led to a lack of power, but there was no apparent difference in hearing performance between manual and robotic implantation.

Indexed as

electrode array insertionhearing outcomerobot-assisted implantationscala translocation

Identifiers

PMID37892718
PMCPMC10607818
OpenAlexW4387737812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.