» Articles » PMID: 36354508

Impact of Scala Tympani Geometry on Insertion Forces During Implantation

Overview
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2022 Nov 10
PMID 36354508
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

(1) Background: During a cochlear implant insertion, the mechanical trauma can cause residual hearing loss in up to half of implantations. The forces on the cochlea during the insertion can lead to this mechanical trauma but can be highly variable between subjects which is thought to be due to differing anatomy, namely of the scala tympani. This study presents a systematic investigation of the influence of different geometrical parameters of the scala tympani on the cochlear implant insertion force. The influence of these parameters on the insertion forces were determined by testing the forces within 3D-printed, optically transparent models of the scala tympani with geometric alterations. (2) Methods: Three-dimensional segmentations of the cochlea were characterised using a custom MATLAB script which parametrised the scala tympani model, procedurally altered the key shape parameters (e.g., the volume, vertical trajectory, curvature, and cross-sectional area), and generated 3D printable models that were printed using a digital light processing 3D printer. The printed models were then attached to a custom insertion setup that measured the insertion forces on the cochlear implant and the scala tympani model during a controlled robotic insertion. (3) Results: It was determined that the insertion force is largely unaffected by the overall size, curvature, vertical trajectory, and cross-sectional area once the forces were normalised to an angular insertion depth. A Capstan-based model of the CI insertion forces was developed and matched well to the data acquired. (4) Conclusion: By using accurate 3D-printed models of the scala tympani with geometrical alterations, it was possible to demonstrate the insensitivity of the insertion forces to the size and shape of the scala tympani, after controlling for the angular insertion depth. This supports the Capstan model of the cochlear implant insertion force which predicts an exponential growth of the frictional force with an angular insertion depth. This concludes that the angular insertion depth, rather than the length of the CI inserted, should be the major consideration when evaluating the insertion force and associated mechanical trauma caused by cochlear implant insertion.

Citing Articles

Preclinical evaluation of a hydraulic actuation system with guide tube for robotic cochlear implant electrode insertion.

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.


The role of pressure and friction forces in automated insertion of cochlear implants.

Frohlich M, Deutz J, Wangenheim M, Rau T, Lenarz T, Kral A Front Neurol. 2024; 15:1430694.

PMID: 39170077 PMC: 11337231. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1430694.


Impact of Insertion Speed, Depth, and Robotic Assistance on Cochlear Implant Insertion Forces and Intracochlear Pressure: A Scoping Review.

Hrncirik F, Nagy L, Grimes H, Iftikhar H, Muzaffar J, Bance M Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(11).

PMID: 38894099 PMC: 11174543. DOI: 10.3390/s24113307.


First clinical implementation of insertion force measurement in cochlear implantation surgery.

Rau T, Bottcher-Rebmann G, Schell V, Cramer J, Artukarslan E, Baier C Front Neurol. 2024; 15:1400455.

PMID: 38711559 PMC: 11070539. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1400455.


On the interdependence of insertion forces, insertion speed, and lubrication: Aspects to consider when testing cochlear implant electrodes.

Frohlich M, Schurzig D, Rau T, Lenarz T PLoS One. 2024; 19(1):e0295121.

PMID: 38266033 PMC: 10807833. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295121.


References
1.
Demarcy T, Vandersteen C, Guevara N, Raffaelli C, Gnansia D, Ayache N . Automated analysis of human cochlea shape variability from segmented μCT images. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2017; 59:1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.04.002. View

2.
Incerti P, Ching T, Cowan R . A systematic review of electric-acoustic stimulation: device fitting ranges, outcomes, and clinical fitting practices. Trends Amplif. 2013; 17(1):3-26. PMC: 4040864. DOI: 10.1177/1084713813480857. View

3.
Avasarala V, Jinka S, Jeyakumar A . Complications of Cochleostomy Versus Round Window Surgical Approaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2022; 14(5):e25451. PMC: 9239322. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25451. View

4.
Irving S, Gillespie L, Richardson R, Rowe D, Fallon J, Wise A . Electroacoustic stimulation: now and into the future. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:350504. PMC: 4168031. DOI: 10.1155/2014/350504. View

5.
Schuster D, Kratchman L, Labadie R . Characterization of intracochlear rupture forces in fresh human cadaveric cochleae. Otol Neurotol. 2014; 36(4):657-61. PMC: 4359032. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000573. View