Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 2;14(8):e0220543.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220543. eCollection 2019.

Robotic middle ear access for cochlear implantation: First in man

Affiliations

Robotic middle ear access for cochlear implantation: First in man

Marco Caversaccio et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

To demonstrate the feasibility of robotic middle ear access in a clinical setting, nine adult patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss indicated for cochlear implantation were included in this clinical trial. A keyhole access tunnel to the tympanic cavity and targeting the round window was planned based on preoperatively acquired computed tomography image data and robotically drilled to the level of the facial recess. Intraoperative imaging was performed to confirm sufficient distance of the drilling trajectory to relevant anatomy. Robotic drilling continued toward the round window. The cochlear access was manually created by the surgeon. Electrode arrays were inserted through the keyhole tunnel under microscopic supervision via a tympanomeatal flap. All patients were successfully implanted with a cochlear implant. In 9 of 9 patients the robotic drilling was planned and performed to the level of the facial recess. In 3 patients, the procedure was reverted to a conventional approach for safety reasons. No change in facial nerve function compared to baseline measurements was observed. Robotic keyhole access for cochlear implantation is feasible. Further improvements to workflow complexity, duration of surgery, and usability including safety assessments are required to enable wider adoption of the procedure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

S.W., B.B., and T.W. are inventors on the related patent EP2666248; K.G., J.A., and S.W. are inventors on the related patents EP16153033S. S.W., K.G., T.W., N.G., and J.A. are inventors of the related patent PCT/IB2017/055312. S.W. is cofounder, shareholder, and advisor to the board of CAScination AG (Bern, Switzerland), a company that is developing robotic cochlear implantation technology based on the presented system. Partial funding for this study was received from MED-EL GmbH. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flowchart for non-randomized trial design.
Fig 2
Fig 2
(left) The robotic system with patient. (right) Comparison between conventional and robotic procedure in postoperative computed-tomography slices (subject 06).
Fig 3
Fig 3
(left) Patient prepared for intraoperative CBCT imaging. (right) Microscopic inspection of the robotically drilled tunnel (arrow) after reversion to conventional procedure including a mastoidectomy (subject 02).

References

    1. House WF. Cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 85, S1–93 (1976). - PubMed
    1. Müller J. [Bilateral cochlear implants]. In German. HNO. 65, 561–570 (2017). 10.1007/s00106-017-0370-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crowson MG, Semenov YR, Tucci DL, Niparko JK. Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review. Audiol Neurootol. 22, 236–258 (2017). 10.1159/000481767 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roland JT, Gantz BJ, Waltzman SB, Parkinson AJ. Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with high-frequency hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 128, 1939–1945 (2018). 10.1002/lary.27073 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marchioni D, Grammatica A, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Genovese E, Presutti L. Endoscopic cochlear implant procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 271, 959–966 (2014). 10.1007/s00405-013-2490-4 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types