Image-guided and robot-assisted surgeries have found their applications in skullbase surgery. Technological improvements in terms of accuracy also opened new opportunities for robotically-assisted cochlear implantation surgery (RACIS). The HEARO® robotic system is an otological next-generation surgical robot to assist the surgeon. It first provides software-defined spatial boundaries for orientation and reference information to anatomical structures during otological and neurosurgical procedures. Second, it executes a preplanned drill trajectory through the temporal bone. Here, we report how safe the HEARO procedure can provide an autonomous minimally invasive inner ear access and the efficiency of this access to subsequently insert the electrode array during cochlear implantation. In 22 out of 25 included patients, the surgeon was able to complete the HEARO® procedure. The dedicated planning software (OTOPLAN®) allowed the surgeon to reconstruct a three-dimensional representation of all the relevant anatomical structures, designate the target on the cochlea, i.e., the round window, and plan the safest trajectory to reach it. This trajectory accommodated the safety distance to the critical structures while minimizing the insertion angles. A minimal distance of 0.4 and 0.3 mm was planned to facial nerve and chorda tympani, respectively. Intraoperative cone-beam CT supported safe passage for the 22 HEARO® procedures. The intraoperative accuracy analysis reported the following mean errors: 0.182 mm to target, 0.117 mm to facial nerve, and 0.107 mm to chorda tympani. This study demonstrates that microsurgical robotic technology can be used in different anatomical variations, even including a case of inner ear anomalies, with the geometrically correct keyhole to access to the inner ear. Future perspectives in RACIS may focus on improving intraoperative imaging, automated segmentation and trajectory, robotic insertion with controlled speed, and haptic feedback. This study [Experimental Antwerp robotic research otological surgery (EAR2OS) and Antwerp Robotic cochlear implantation (25 refers to 25 cases) (ARCI25)] was registered at clinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT03746613 and NCT04102215.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT04102215.
IntroductionNeonates undergo neonatal hearing screening to detect congenital hearing loss at an early stage. Once confirmed, it is necessary to perform an etiological workup to start appropriate treatment. The study objective was to assess the different etiologies, risk factors, and hearing results of infants with permanent hearing loss and to evaluate the efficacy and consequences of the different screening devices over the last 21 years.MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort analysis for all neonatal hearing screening program referrals and performed an etiological workup in case of confirmed hearing loss. We analyzed the evolution of the etiological protocols based on these results.ResultsThe governmental neonatal hearing screening program referred 545 infants to our center. Hearing loss was confirmed in 362 (66.4%) infants and an audiological workup was performed in 458 (84%) cases. 133 (24.4%) infants were diagnosed with permanent hearing loss. Ninety infants (56 bilateral and 34 unilateral) had sensorineural hearing loss, and the degree was predominantly moderate or profound. The most common etiology in bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was a genetic etiology (32.1%), and in unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, an anatomical abnormality (26.5%). Familial history of hearing loss was the most frequently encountered risk factor.ConclusionThere is a significant number of false positives after the neonatal hearing screening. Permanent hearing loss is found only in a limited number of infants. During the 21 years of this study, we noticed an increase in etiological diagnoses, especially genetic causes, due to more advanced techniques. Genetic causes and anatomical abnormalities are the most common etiology of bilateral and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, respectively, but a portion remains unknown after extensive examinations.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the short-term and long-term audiological outcomes in patients who underwent cochlear implantation with a robot-assisted system to enable access to the cochlea, and to compare outcomes with a matched control group of patients who underwent cochlear implantation with conventional access to the cochlea. MethodsIn total, 23 patients were implanted by robot-assisted cochlear implant surgery (RACIS). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of robotic surgery in terms of audiological outcomes, a statistically balanced control group of conventionally implanted bilaterally deaf patients was created. Minimal Outcome Measures (MOM), consisting of pure-tone audiometry, speech understanding in quiet and speech understanding in noise were performed pre-operatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 2 years post-activation of the audioprocessor. ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in pure-tone audiometry, speech perception in quiet and speech perception in noise between robotically implanted and conventionally implanted patients pre-operatively, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 2 years post-activation. A significant improvement in pure-tone hearing thresholds, speech understanding in quiet and speech understanding in noise with the cochlear implant has been quantified as of the first measurements at 3 months and this significant improvement remained stable over a time period of 2 years for HEARO implanted patients. ConclusionClinical outcomes in robot-assisted cochlear implant surgery are comparable to conventional cochlear implantation. Clinicaltrails.gov trail registration numbers: NCT03746613 (date of registration: 19/11/2018), NCT04102215 (date of registration: 25/09/2019)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.