ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Robotic-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Improves Rates of Hearing Preservation.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Improves Stability of Acoustic Hearing Thresholds.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Manual Insertion of Cochlear Implant Electrodes Versus Robot-Assisted Insertion and Analysis by Micro-CT: A Temporal Bone Study.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Multi-Level Perception Systems in Fusion of Lifeforms: Classification, Challenges and Future Conceptions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Towards a consensus on hearing and structure preservation in cochlear implantation surgery: results of the HEARRING international group survey.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Robotic-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Improves Rates of Hearing Preservation.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Hearing preservation outcomes with motorized cochlear implant electrode insertion: matched-cohort observations.Frontiers in surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Robotic-assisted electrode array (EA) insertion is a promising technique that may enhance hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) surgery. The purpose of our study is to understand the extent to which robotic-assisted EA insertion improves hearing preservation.
methodsTwenty-four adult patients underwent CI surgery with manual EA insertion and 27 adult patients underwent CI surgery with robotic-assisted EA insertion using the iotaSOFT system. The EAs used included the Flex 20/24/26. The primary outcome variable was low frequency pure-tone average (LFPTA), defined as mean audiometric threshold at 125, 250, and 500 Hz. This was measured preoperatively, at initial activation (within 4 weeks of surgery), and subsequently at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Functional acoustic hearing was defined as LFPTA < 80 dB HL.
resultsSeventeen out of 24 patients (71%) in the manual insertion group and 23 out of 27 patients (85%) in the robotic-assisted EA insertion group had preserved functional acoustic hearing (< 80 dB HL) up till 1 year (Fisher's exact test (two-tailed) is not statistically significant, p = 0.31). The number needed to treat with robotic-assisted EA insertion to prevent one additional negative outcome of loss of functional acoustic hearing would be 7 (1/0.14).
conclusionRobotic-assisted EA insertion is associated with improved hearing preservation over 1 year compared with manual insertion. Hearing preservation leads to improved outcomes and therefore every effort should be made to preserve the delicate structure and function of the cochlea during EA insertion. Robotic-assisted EA insertion advances that objective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (cohort study).
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.