ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Robot-Assisted and Manual Cochlear Implantation: An Intra-Individual Study of Speech Recognition.
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.
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.
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.
Comparative Analysis of Hearing Outcomes: Robotic vs. Manual Insertion of Cochlear Implants
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hearing preservation outcomes with motorized cochlear implant electrode insertion: matched-cohort observations.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic assistance during cochlear implantation: the rationale for consistent, controlled speed of electrode array insertion.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.