Literature DB >> 25853609

Manual Electrode Array Insertion Through a Robot-Assisted Minimal Invasive Cochleostomy: Feasibility and Comparison of Two Different Electrode Array Subtypes.

Frederic Venail1, Brett Bell, Mohamed Akkari, Wilhelm Wimmer, Tom Williamson, Nicolas Gerber, Kate Gavaghan, Francois Canovas, Stefan Weber, Marco Caversaccio, Alain Uziel.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the feasibility and the results of insertion of two types of electrode arrays in a robotically assisted surgical approach.
BACKGROUND: Recent publications demonstrated that robot-assisted surgery allows the implantation of free-fitting electrode arrays through a cochleostomy drilled via a narrow bony tunnel (DCA). We investigated if electrode arrays from different manufacturers could be used with this approach.
METHODS: Cone-beam CT imaging was performed on five-cadaveric heads after placement of fiducial screws. Relevant anatomical structures were segmented and the DCA trajectory, including the position of the cochleostomy, was defined to target the center of the scala tympani while reducing the risk of lesions to the facial nerve. Med-El Flex 28 and Cochlear CI422 electrodes were implanted on both sides, and their position was verified by cone-beam CT. Finally, temporal bones were dissected to assess the occurrence of damage to anatomical structures during DCA drilling.
RESULTS: The cochleostomy site was directed in the scala tympani in 9 of 10 cases. The insertion of electrode arrays was successful in 19 of 20 attempts. No facial nerve damage was observed. The average difference between the planned and the postoperative trajectory was 0.17 ± 0.19 mm at the level of the facial nerve. The average depth of insertion was 305.5 ± 55.2 and 243 ± 32.1 degrees with Med-El and Cochlear arrays, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted surgery is a reliable tool to allow cochlear implantation through a cochleostomy. Technical solutions must be developed to improve the electrode array insertion using this approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25853609     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  5 in total

1.  Improvement of the insertion axis for cochlear implantation with a robot-based system.

Authors:  Renato Torres; Guillaume Kazmitcheff; Daniele De Seta; Evelyne Ferrary; Olivier Sterkers; Yann Nguyen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 2.  Outlook and future of inner ear therapy.

Authors:  Jenna Devare; Samuel Gubbels; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Endoscope-Assisted Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Enis Alpin Güneri; Yüksel Olgun
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 3.372

4.  Instrument flight to the inner ear.

Authors:  S Weber; K Gavaghan; W Wimmer; T Williamson; N Gerber; J Anso; B Bell; A Feldmann; C Rathgeb; M Matulic; M Stebinger; D Schneider; G Mantokoudis; O Scheidegger; F Wagner; M Kompis; M Caversaccio
Journal:  Sci Robot       Date:  2017-03-15

5.  Image-guided cochlear access by non-invasive registration: a cadaveric feasibility study.

Authors:  Jiang Wang; Hongsheng Liu; Jia Ke; Lei Hu; Shaoxing Zhang; Biao Yang; Shilong Sun; Na Guo; Furong Ma
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.