ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2025
Robotic Versus Manual Electrode Insertion in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Experimental Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2025. 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.
- Synchrotron-Based Trauma Assessment of Robotic Electrode Insertions in Cochlear Implantation.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Early Clinical Experience With Robot-Assisted Electrode Insertion in Cochlear Implantation Using the Otoarm-Otodrive System.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
- Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Robot-Assisted Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Insertion.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis experimental study compared the precision and surgical outcomes of manual versus robotic electrode insertions in cochlear implantation.
methodsThe study was conducted on formalin-fixed cadaveric heads, with nine senior neurotologists performing both manual and robotic insertions.
resultsThe results showed no statistically significant differences between the two methods in terms of insertion angle, cochlear coverage, or electrode coverage. However, the robotic method demonstrated a significantly slower and more controlled insertion speed (0.1 mm/sec) compared to manual insertion (0.66±0.31 mm/sec), which is crucial for minimizing intra-cochlear force and pressures. Although robotic insertions resulted in fewer complications such as tip fold-over or scala deviation, there were instances of incomplete insertion.
conclusionThe robotic system provided a consistent and controlled insertion process, potentially standardizing cochlear implant operations and reducing outcome variability. The study concludes that robotic-assisted insertion offers significant advantages in controlling insertion speed and consistency, supporting the continued development and clinical evaluation of robotic systems for cochlear implant surgery.
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.