Comparison on intracochlear disturbances between drilling a manual and robotic cochleostomy
- PMID: 23804953
- DOI: 10.1177/0954411913488507
Comparison on intracochlear disturbances between drilling a manual and robotic cochleostomy
Abstract
During cochlear implantation, hearing preservation is a concern. Minimizing disturbances to the cochlea and protection of the underlying endosteal membrane during the formation of a cochleostomy are considered important factors. The robotic micro-drill system tested in this article is the first example of an autonomous surgical drill successfully producing a cochleostomy, which keeps the underlying endosteal membrane intact. This study compares induced disturbances within the cochlea during formation of cochleostomy using the robotic micro-drill with that of conventional manual drilling. The disturbance of the endosteal membrane is measured using a Microscope Scanning Vibrometer at a third window, produced in the cochlea. Results show that the highest velocity amplitude measured was associated with manual drilling technique. The robotic micro-drill technique produced only about 1% of the peak velocity amplitude seen in manual drilling and exhibited much more uniform behaviour, while keeping the underlying membrane intact. The technique applied when using the robotic drill could be a major step in reducing the trauma to the cochlea, by reducing disturbance levels.
Keywords: Microscope Scanning Vibrometer; Robotic micro-drill; cochleostomy; disturbances.
Similar articles
-
A smart micro-drill for cochleostomy formation: a comparison of cochlear disturbances with manual drilling and a human trial.Cochlear Implants Int. 2013 Mar;14(2):98-106. doi: 10.1179/1754762811Y.0000000018. Epub 2011 Sep 24. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013. PMID: 22333534
-
An autonomous surgical robot for drilling a cochleostomy: preliminary porcine trial.Clin Otolaryngol. 2008 Aug;33(4):343-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01703.x. Clin Otolaryngol. 2008. PMID: 18983344
-
Modification and comparison of minimally invasive cochleostomy techniques: A pilot study.Laryngoscope. 2012 May;122(5):1142-7. doi: 10.1002/lary.23231. Epub 2012 Mar 23. Laryngoscope. 2012. PMID: 22447373
-
Robotics, automation, active electrode arrays, and new devices for cochlear implantation: A contemporary review.Hear Res. 2022 Feb;414:108425. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108425. Epub 2021 Dec 25. Hear Res. 2022. PMID: 34979455 Review.
-
ENT challenges at the small scale.Int J Med Robot. 2007 Jun;3(2):91-6. doi: 10.1002/rcs.132. Int J Med Robot. 2007. PMID: 17619240 Review.
Cited by
-
Image-Based Planning of Minimally Traumatic Inner Ear Access for Robotic Cochlear Implantation.Front Surg. 2021 Nov 25;8:761217. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.761217. eCollection 2021. Front Surg. 2021. PMID: 34901143 Free PMC article.
-
Mechatronic feasibility of minimally invasive, atraumatic cochleostomy.Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:181624. doi: 10.1155/2014/181624. Epub 2014 Jul 7. Biomed Res Int. 2014. PMID: 25110661 Free PMC article.
-
Outlook and future of inner ear therapy.Hear Res. 2018 Oct;368:127-135. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.009. Epub 2018 May 17. Hear Res. 2018. PMID: 29804723 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources