ArticlePloS one2024
On the interdependence of insertion forces, insertion speed, and lubrication: Aspects to consider when testing cochlear implant electrodes.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parametric Modeling of Cochlear Electrode Arrays Using Design of Experiments and Finite Element Analysis (FEA).Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2026Article
- Preclinical evaluation of a hydraulic actuation system with guide tube for robotic cochlear implant electrode insertion.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- The role of pressure and friction forces in automated insertion of cochlear implants.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Does the audiogram shape influence the intracochlear recording of Electrocochleography during and after cochlear implantation?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDuring the insertion of cochlear implant (CI) electrode arrays, forces occur which may cause trauma and poorer hearing outcomes. Unfortunately, research groups investigating factors influencing insertion forces come to contradicting results, especially regarding insertion speed. This study was conducted to investigate the origin of these contradicting results and to determine how different testing conditions influence experimental findings.
methodsRepeated, automated insertions with three different FLEX28 CI electrode arrays (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria) were performed into a newly developed, anatomically correct and 3D-printed mean scala tympani phantom. The testing protocol for each electrode included variations in insertion speed (v = 0.1-2.0 mm/s) and lubrication (90%, 50%, and 10% liquid soap), resulting in 51 insertions per electrode array and a total of 153 insertions.
resultsThe test setup and protocol allowed for repeatable insertions with only minimal change in the morphology of the insertion force profiles per testing condition. Strong but varying dependencies of the maximal insertion forces and work were found regarding both lubrication and speed: work-speed dependency is constant for the 10% lubricant, negative for the 50% lubricant and positive for the 90% lubricant.
conclusionOur results can explain part of the contradicting results found within previous studies by translating interrelations known from lubricated rubber friction to the field of CI electrode array insertion. We show that the main driver behind measured bulk forces are most likely the generated friction forces, which are strongly dependent on insertion speed and lubrication. The employed test setup allows for conducting repeatable and comparable insertion studies, which can be recapitulated by other centers due to the detailed explanation of the test setup as well as the developed and freely available insertion phantom. This study hence represents another important step toward standardizing CI array insertion testing.
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.