Jan-Philipp Kobler1, Michael Schoppe2, G Jakob Lexow3, Thomas S Rau3, Omid Majdani3, Lüder A Kahrs2, Tobias Ortmaier2. 1. Institute of Mechatronic Systems, Leibniz Universität Hannover, 30167 , Hannover, Germany. jan-philipp.kobler@imes.uni-hannover.de. 2. Institute of Mechatronic Systems, Leibniz Universität Hannover, 30167 , Hannover, Germany. 3. Hannover Medical School, 30625 , Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive cochlear implantation is a surgical technique which requires drilling a canal from the mastoid surface toward the basal turn of the cochlea. The choice of an appropriate drilling strategy is hypothesized to have significant influence on the achievable targeting accuracy. Therefore, a method is presented to analyze the contribution of the drilling process and drilling tool to the targeting error isolated from other error sources. METHODS: The experimental setup to evaluate the borehole accuracy comprises a drill handpiece attached to a linear slide as well as a highly accurate coordinate measuring machine (CMM). Based on the specific requirements of the minimally invasive cochlear access, three drilling strategies, mainly characterized by different drill tools, are derived. The strategies are evaluated by drilling into synthetic temporal bone substitutes containing air-filled cavities to simulate mastoid cells. Deviations from the desired drill trajectories are determined based on measurements using the CMM. RESULTS: Using the experimental setup, a total of 144 holes were drilled for accuracy evaluation. Errors resulting from the drilling process depend on the specific geometry of the tool as well as the angle at which the drill contacts the bone surface. Furthermore, there is a risk of the drill bit deflecting due to synthetic mastoid cells. CONCLUSIONS: A single-flute gun drill combined with a pilot drill of the same diameter provided the best results for simulated minimally invasive cochlear implantation, based on an experimental method that may be used for testing further drilling process improvements.
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive cochlear implantation is a surgical technique which requires drilling a canal from the mastoid surface toward the basal turn of the cochlea. The choice of an appropriate drilling strategy is hypothesized to have significant influence on the achievable targeting accuracy. Therefore, a method is presented to analyze the contribution of the drilling process and drilling tool to the targeting error isolated from other error sources. METHODS: The experimental setup to evaluate the borehole accuracy comprises a drill handpiece attached to a linear slide as well as a highly accurate coordinate measuring machine (CMM). Based on the specific requirements of the minimally invasive cochlear access, three drilling strategies, mainly characterized by different drill tools, are derived. The strategies are evaluated by drilling into synthetic temporal bone substitutes containing air-filled cavities to simulate mastoid cells. Deviations from the desired drill trajectories are determined based on measurements using the CMM. RESULTS: Using the experimental setup, a total of 144 holes were drilled for accuracy evaluation. Errors resulting from the drilling process depend on the specific geometry of the tool as well as the angle at which the drill contacts the bone surface. Furthermore, there is a risk of the drill bit deflecting due to synthetic mastoid cells. CONCLUSIONS: A single-flute gun drill combined with a pilot drill of the same diameter provided the best results for simulated minimally invasive cochlear implantation, based on an experimental method that may be used for testing further drilling process improvements.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Cochlear implants; Drill bit geometry; Drilling; Surgical robotics
Authors: Brett Bell; Christof Stieger; Nicolas Gerber; Andreas Arnold; Claude Nauer; Volkmar Hamacher; Martin Kompis; Lutz Nolte; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Weber Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2012-03-04 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: C Stieger; M Caversaccio; A Arnold; G Zheng; J Salzmann; D Widmer; N Gerber; M Thurner; C Nauer; Y Mussard; M Kompis; L P Nolte; R Häusler; S Weber Journal: J Laryngol Otol Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 1.469
Authors: Ramya Balachandran; Jason E Mitchell; Grégoire Blachon; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Robert F Labadie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Robert F Labadie; Pallavi Chodhury; Ebru Cetinkaya; Ramya Balachandran; David S Haynes; Micahel R Fenlon; Andrzej S Jusczyzck; J Michael Fitzpatrick Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Omid Majdani; Thomas S Rau; Stephan Baron; Hubertus Eilers; Claas Baier; Bodo Heimann; Tobias Ortmaier; Sönke Bartling; Thomas Lenarz; Martin Leinung Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2009-06-13 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Robert F Labadie; Ramya Balachandran; Jason E Mitchell; Jack H Noble; Omid Majdani; David S Haynes; Marc L Bennett; Benoit M Dawant; J Michael Fitzpatrick Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Brett Bell; Nicolas Gerber; Tom Williamson; Kate Gavaghan; Wilhelm Wimmer; Marco Caversaccio; Stefan Weber Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Jan-Philipp Kobler; Sergej Wall; G Jakob Lexow; Carl Philipp Lang; Omid Majdani; Lüder A Kahrs; Tobias Ortmaier Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Igor Stenin; Stefan Hansen; M Nau-Hermes; W El-Hakimi; M Becker; J Bredemann; J Kristin; T Klenzner; J Schipper Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 2.924