Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42760372›Full record

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 Surgery2026

Evaluation of manual and robot-assisted electrode placement in malformed cochleae using imaging-based patient specific 3D models.

Fiona Anna Molnár, Mária Matuz, Zoltán Tobiás, Zsolt Geretovszky, Zsófia Bere, Haadi Mollabux, Roland Nagy, László Rovó, Ádám Perenyi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fiona Anna MolnárDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary. drmolnarfiona@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4185-7292
Mária MatuzInstitute of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, Szikra Street 8, Szeged, Hungary.
Zoltán TobiásDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Zsolt Geretovszky3D Centre, Interdisciplinary Research, Development, and Innovation Excellence Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Zsófia BereDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Haadi MollabuxDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Roland NagyDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
László RovóDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Ádám PerenyiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCochlear implantation in congenital inner ear malformations can be technically challenging due to the atypical anatomy which can limit electrode selection, trajectory, and insertion depth. Although high-resolution CT/MRI and planning tools (e.g., OTOPLAN

methodsHigh-resolution CT and/or MRI from 8 paediatric candidates were used to reconstruct and 3D print 16 cochleae (malformed cochleae plus one anatomically normal control with eighth nerve aplasia, as applicable). Four electrode arrays (MED-EL Medium, MED-EL Compressed, MED-EL Flex24, and Cochlear Straight) were inserted by an expert surgeon (P1), a novice surgeon (P2), and a robotic system (RobOtol

resultsElectrode type and cochlear anatomy were the primary determinants of insertion outcomes. Electrode arrays with shorter active lengths (MED-EL Compressed) demonstrated higher insertion completeness in anatomically restricted malformed cochleae, whereas Flex24 and Cochlear Straight showed reduced completeness in restrictive hypoplastic cochleae. Operator identity, including robotic assistance, had minimal impact; ease was generally high. OTOPLAN

conclusionIn malformed cochleae, insertion completeness was influenced primarily by cochlear morphology and electrode characteristics within the outcome measures assessed. Patient-specific 3D models provide a useful platform for electrode-anatomy compatibility assessment and preoperative planning; however, clinical validation incorporating tonotopic coverage, audiological outcomes, and objective robotic performance metrics is warranted.

Indexed as

3D printingCochlea malformationsCochlear ImplantationMedical educationRobotic Surgery.Virtual models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.