ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Synchrotron-Based Trauma Assessment of Robotic Electrode Insertions in Cochlear Implantation.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synchrotron-Based Deep Learning Network of the Inner Ear: Development and Expert Validation.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Micro-CT Evaluation of Robot-Assisted Insertion of CI632 Implant in Human Cadaveric Temporal Bones.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMinimizing intraoperative trauma during cochlear implant electrode insertion is crucial for preserving residual hearing. Manual insertions are subject to variability due to surgeon experience and anatomical differences, often leading to inconsistent outcomes. Robotic-assisted systems have been developed to improve insertion precision and reduce trauma. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the OTODRIVE system for cochlear implant electrode insertion.
methodsFifteen cadaveric human temporal bones were implanted with a variety of electrodes (FLEX26, FLEX28, FLEXSOFT, FLEX34) and an inner ear catheter (INCAT). The OTODRIVE system was used to maintain a constant insertion speed of 0.1 mm/s. The samples were subsequently imaged using synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging (SR-PCI) to assess intracochlear trauma. Parameters such as linear and angular insertion depths and cochlear coverage were measured. The presence of trauma was analyzed using a trauma evaluation plot.
resultsThe average linear insertion depth was 24.8 ± 3.5 mm, and the average angular insertion depth was 527° ± 81°. Cochlear coverage was 74% ± 7%. Only one case of partial scala media translocation and two cases of basilar membrane elevation were observed, with no instances of severe trauma such as tip fold-over, scala vestibuli translocation, or osseous spiral lamina fracture.
conclusionThe findings indicate that the OTODRIVE system enables consistent and controlled electrode placement while minimizing trauma to cochlear structures, suggesting its potential to enhance hearing and structural preservation outcomes. Further clinical studies are required to establish the long-term benefits of robotic-assisted techniques over manual insertions in routine cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.