Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828715›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

Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions considering cochlear geometric factors.

Anni Andersson, Stephan Geiger, Matti Pekka Iso-Mustajärvi, Petro Julkunen, Tim Nauwelaers, Aarno Dietz

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

6 authors.

Anni Andersson *Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-5105-4813
Stephan Geiger *Advanced Bionics LLC, Valencia, CA, USA. sgeiger@uef.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0993-8348
Matti Pekka Iso-MustajärviDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Petro JulkunenDepartment of Technical Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Tim NauwelaersAdvanced Bionics GmbH, European Research Center, Hannover, Germany.
Aarno DietzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePurpose of the present study was to compare the intracochlear trauma coincidentally caused by robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions in human temporal bones, and to evaluate the influence of cochlear geometry on insertion outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty human temporal bones, paired according to cochlear size, underwent round window insertion with a HiFocus SlimJ array, either manually or using the iotaSOFT® insertion system. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCTs) and micro-CTs were used to measure angular insertion depth (AID) and cochlear dimensions, and to assess electrode scalar location to define the level of trauma. Additionally, a cochlea implant imaging tool was used to measure lateral scala tympani height and estimate angular insertion depth.

resultsNo scalar translocation occurred in the robotic group, whereas three translocations were found in the manual group. Mean trauma scores were lower for robotic insertions (0.30 ± 0.48) compared with manual insertions (0.89 ± 0.93). Manual insertion produced significantly deeper AID (428 ± 82°) than robotic insertions (304 ± 47°, p = 0.004). The robotic group exhibited significantly more extra-cochlear contacts (2.3 ± 1.8) than the manual group (0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.011). Greater AID correlated with more severe trauma (r = 0.682, p = 0.001). Smaller cochlear dimensions were associated with deeper estimated AID and increased trauma. Lower lateral scala tympani height was found for the translocations compared to non-translocations, indicating an influence on trauma risk.

conclusionRobotic-assisted cochlear implantation resulted in less trauma occurrence compared to manual insertion. However, trauma risk was strongly influenced by cochlear geometry and insertion depth. These findings indicate that cochlear geometry is associated with insertion trauma and may support future patient-specific planning and robotic-assisted insertion strategies to reduce trauma.

Indexed as

Cochlear geometryCochlear implantsRobotic-assisted surgeryTrauma

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.