Evaluation of Insertion Forces and Cochlea Trauma Following Robotics-Assisted Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Insertion
Overview
Otorhinolaryngology
Affiliations
Hypothesis: The objective was to evaluate the effect of cochlear implant (CI) insertion technique on electrode insertion forces and intracochlear trauma. We hypothesize that robotics-assisted insertions will reduce insertion forces and intracochlear trauma compared with manual insertions.
Background: Variability in CI outcomes exists across patients, implant centers, surgeons, and electrode types. While surgical techniques that reduce electrode insertion trauma are well established, insertion trauma remains one contributing factor to variability in CI outcomes. Previous work demonstrates that micromechanically controlled insertion tools reduce both maximum insertion forces and insertion variability compared with manual insertions.
Methods: CI electrode insertions were performed either by hand (n = 12) or utilizing a robotics-assisted tool (n = 12) in fresh frozen, human cadaveric cochleae using electrodes from four different CI manufacturers. Electrodes array insertion forces were additionally evaluated in benchtop cochlea models. Following cadaveric insertions, samples were imaged via high resolution x-ray microscopy to evaluate electrode position and intracochlear trauma events based on a modified Eshraghi scale.
Results: Electrode array insertions performed by robotics-assisted system showed significantly lower insertion forces and variability. Manual electrode array insertions had a significantly higher overall trauma score of 3.1 ± 2.0 compared with 0.9 ± 1.0 for robotics-assisted insertions. Robotics-assisted insertions had higher rate of basilar membrane elevations while manual insertions showed higher rates of severe trauma events.
Conclusions: The robotic-assisted insertion system reduced trauma events associated with CI electrode insertions in cadaveric cochleae compared with manual insertions. Surgical devices which help to precisely and more consistently insert electrodes may improve CI outcomes and hearing preservation.
Cramer J, Salcher R, Frohlich M, Bottcher-Rebmann G, Artukarslan E, Lenarz T Biomed Eng Online. 2025; 24(1):19.
PMID: 39953541 PMC: 11829445. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-025-01338-z.
Gao H, Liu H, Jia H, Lin Z, Zou Y, Xu Z Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):1648.
PMID: 39952944 PMC: 11828907. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56958-9.
Fibranz L, Behrends W, Wulf K, Raggl S, Kotter L, Eickner T J Funct Biomater. 2025; 16(1).
PMID: 39852589 PMC: 11766145. DOI: 10.3390/jfb16010033.
Feasibility of Using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) to Augment Cadaveric Temporal Training.
Wesson T, Ambike S, Patel R, Yates C, Nelson R, Francis A Laryngoscope. 2024; 135(4):1465-1471.
PMID: 39539083 PMC: 11903923. DOI: 10.1002/lary.31878.
Aebischer P, Anschuetz L, Caversaccio M, Mantokoudis G, Weder S Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2024; 20(2):323-332.
PMID: 39352456 PMC: 11807918. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-024-03276-y.