Background: As an advanced surgical technique to reduce trauma to the inner ear, robot-assisted electrode array (EA) insertion has been applied in adult cochlear implantation (CI) and was approved as a safe surgical procedure that could result in better outcomes. As the mastoid and temporal bones are generally smaller in children, which would increase the difficulty for robot-assisted manipulation, the clinical application of these systems for CI in children has not been reported. Given that the pediatric candidate is the main population, we aim to investigate the safety and reliability of robot-assisted techniques in pediatric cochlear implantation.Methods: Retrospective cohort study at a referral center in Shanghai including all patients of simultaneous bilateral CI with robotic assistance on one side (RobOtol® system, Collin ORL, Bagneux, France), and manual insertion on the other (same brand of EA and CI in both side), from December 2019 to June 2020. The surgical outcomes, radiological measurements (EA positioning, EA insertion depth, mastoidectomy size), and audiological outcomes (Behavior pure-tone audiometry) were evaluated.Results: Five infants (17.8 ± 13.5 months, ranging from 10 to 42 months) and an adult (39 years old) were enrolled in this study. Both perimodiolar and lateral wall EAs were included. The robot-assisted EA insertion was successfully performed in all cases, although the surgical zone in infants was about half the size in adults, and no difference was observed in mastoidectomy size between robot-assisted and manual insertion sides (p = 0.219). The insertion depths of EA with two techniques were similar (P = 0.583). The robot-assisted technique showed no scalar deviation, but scalar deviation occurred for one manually inserted pre-curved EA (16%). Early auditory performance was similar to both techniques.Conclusion: Robot-assisted technique for EA insertion is approved to be used safely and reliably in children, which is possible and potential for better scalar positioning and might improve long-term auditory outcome. Standard mastoidectomy size was enough for robot-assisted technique. This first study marks the arrival of the era of robotic CI for all ages.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: The widespread application of endoscopic ear surgery (EES), performed through the external auditory canal, has revealed the limitations of the one-handed technique. The RobOtol® (Collin ORL, Bagneux, France) otological robotic system has been introduced to enable two-handed procedures; however, the thermal properties of dedicated endoscopes, which are usually used in neurosurgery, called “neuro-endoscopes,” have not yet been clarified for the robotic systems. In this study, we aimed to profile the thermal characteristics of two dedicated neuro-endoscopes, as compared to endoscopes used routinely in manual EES, called “oto-endoscopes,” and defined by a smaller diameter and shorter length, and to discuss the safe application of robotic assistance in EES.Methods: Two neuro-endoscopes (3.3 mm, 25 cm, 0°/30°) were studied using two routine light sources (LED/xenon), and two routine oto-endoscopes (3 mm, 14 cm, 0°/30°) were initially measured to provide a comprehensive comparison. Light intensities and temperatures were measured at different power settings. The thermal distributions were measured in an open environment and a human temporal bone model of EES. The cooling measures were also studied.Results: Light intensity was correlated with stabilized tip temperatures (P < 0.01, R2 = 0.8719). Under 100% xenon power, the stabilized temperatures at the tips of 0°, 30° neuro-endoscopes, and 0°, 30° oto-endoscopes were 96.1, 60.1, 67.8, and 56.4°C, respectively. With 100% LED power, the temperatures decreased by about 10°C, respectively. For the 0° neuro-endoscope, the illuminated area far away 1cm from the tip was below 37°C when using more than 50% both power, while this distance for 30° neuro-endoscope was 0.5 cm. In the EES temporal bone model, the round window area could reach 59.3°C with the 0° neuro-endoscope under 100% xenon power. Suction resulted in a ~1–2°C temperature drop, while a 10 mL saline rinse gave a baseline temperature which lasted for 2.5 min.Conclusion: Neuro-endoscope causes higher thermal releasing in the surgical cavity of ESS, which should be especially cautious in the robotic system usage. Applying submaximal light intensity, a LED source and intermittent rinsing should be considered for the safer robot-assisted EES using a neuro-endoscope that allows a two-handed surgical procedure.