ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Robot-assisted vs. manual cochlear implant electrode array insertion in four children.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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.
- Robotic-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Improves Stability of Acoustic Hearing Thresholds.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Improves Rates of Hearing Preservation.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Synchrotron-Based Trauma Assessment of Robotic Electrode Insertions in Cochlear Implantation.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluate the feasibility and safety of a robotic electrode insertion in pediatric cochlear implantation and compare the results with manually inserted electrodes in the same subject.
methodsRetrospective case series review of four children who underwent bilateral cochlear implantation with the same array: on one side, the array was inserted using the robot, while on the other side the array was inserted manually. Behavioural and electrophysiological measures were compared.
resultsThe duration of surgery when the robot was adopted was significantly longer than when a manual insertion was performed (161.15 ± 27.59 minutes vs. 122.6 ± 37.71 min, paired t-test: p = 0.029). Moreover, robotic electrode insertion was significantly slower (average insertion speed 0.3 mm/second vs. 0.52 ± 0.17 mm/s, paired t-test: p = 0.0055). On radiologic examination, none of the arrays was misplaced. Impedance, both at activation and at one year of cochlear implant use, was significantly lower on the robotic side in monopolar mode compared to the manual side (mean 9.64 ± 2.41kΩ and 9.97 ± 1.39 kΩ vs. 10.43 ± 2.69 kΩ and 10.94 ± 1.11 kΩ, paired t test, p = 0.0251 and p = 0.0061, respectively). Both the threshold stimulation level and the most comfortable loud stimulation level were significantly lower in the robotic inserted ear compared to the manually inserted ear (mean 108.1 ± 5.98 and 169 ± 4.84 vs. 112.1 ± 7.43 and 172.7 ± 6.83, respectively, paired t test p < 0.0001).
conclusionsAlthough we present a small group of cases, our results show how robot-based array insertion is associated with lower impedance and stimulation levels compared to manually inserted arrays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39825199What 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.