ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
The role of pressure and friction forces in automated insertion of cochlear implants.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of S-Value in relation to cochlear anatomy in pediatric cochlear implant users.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Preclinical evaluation of a hydraulic actuation system with guide tube for robotic cochlear implant electrode insertion.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Despite the success of cochlear implant (CI) surgery for hearing restoration, reducing CI electrode insertion forces is an ongoing challenge with the goal to further reduce post-implantation hearing loss. While research in this field shows that both friction and quasistatic pressure forces occur during CI insertion, there is a lack of studies distinguishing between these origins. The present study was conducted to analyze the contribution of both force phenomena during automated CI insertion. Methods: Five MED-EL FLEX28 CI electrode arrays were inserted into both a regular and uncoiled version of the same average scala tympani (ST). Both ST models had a pressure release hole at the apical end, which was kept open or closed to quantify pressure forces. ST models were filled with different sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) lubricants (1, 5, and 10% SDS, water). The viscosity of lubricants was determined using a rheometer. Insertions were conducted with velocities ranging from v= 0.125 mm/s to 2.0 mm/s. Results: Viscosity of SDS lubricants at 20°C was 1.28, 1.96, and 2.51 mPas for 1, 5, and 10% SDS, respectively, which lies within the values reported for human perilymph. In the uncoiled ST model, forces remained within the noise floor (maximum: 0.049 × 10 Conclusion: For the first time, this study demonstrates that at realistic perilymph viscosities, quasistatic pressure forces minimally affect the total insertion force profile during insertion. Mixed friction is the main determinant, and significantly decreases with increaseing insertion speeds. This suggests that in clinical settings with similar ST geometries and surgical preparation, quasistatic pressure plays a subordinate role. Moreover, the findings indicate that managing the hydrodynamics of the cochlear environment, possibly through pre-surgical preparation or the use of specific lubricants, could effectively reduce insertion forces.
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.