Advertisement

Robotic cochlear implantation: feasibility of a multiport approach in an ex vivo model

  • Daniel Schneider
  • Igor Stenin
  • Juan AnsóEmail author
  • Jan Hermann
  • Fabian Mueller
  • Gabriela Pereira Bom Braga
  • Christoph Rathgeb
  • Wilhelm Wimmer
  • Joerg Schipper
  • Julia Kristin
  • Marco Caversaccio
  • Lukas Anschuetz
  • Stefan Weber
  • Thomas Klenzner
Otology
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

A recent clinical trial has shown the feasibility of robotic cochlear implantation. The electrode was inserted through the robotically drilled tunnel and an additional access through the external auditory canal was created to provide for means of visualization and manipulation. To obviate the need for this additional access, the utilization of multiple robotically drilled tunnels targeting the round window has been proposed. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of electrode insertion through a robotic multiport approach.

Methods

In four ex vivo human head specimens (left side), four trajectories through the facial recess (2x) and the retrofacial and suprameatal region were planned and robotically drilled. Optimal three-port configurations were determined for each specimen by analyzing combinations of three of the four trajectories, where the three trajectories were used for the electrode, endoscopic visualization and manipulative assistance. Finally, electrode insertions were conducted through the optimal configurations.

Results

The electrodes could successfully be inserted, and the procedure sufficiently visualized through the facial recess drill tunnels in all specimens. Effective manipulative assistance for sealing the round window could be provided through the retrofacial tunnel.

Conclusions

Electrode insertion through a robotic three-port approach is feasible. Drill tunnels through the facial recess for the electrode and endoscope allow for optimized insertion angles and sufficient visualization. Through a retrofacial tunnel effective manipulation for sealing is possible.

Keywords

Cochlear implantation Robotic surgery Multiport surgery Electrode insertion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Institute of Anatomy at the University of Bern for the preparation of the specimens.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants (ex vivo) were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 98010 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 81502 KB)

Supplementary material 3 (MP4 91345 KB)

Supplementary material 4 (MP4 52088 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Yang G-Z, Cambias J, Cleary K et al (2017) Medical robotics—regulatory, ethical, and legal considerations for increasing levels of autonomy. Sci Robot 2:8638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber S, Gavaghan K, Wimmer W et al (2017) Instrument flight to the inner ear. Sci Robot 2:eaal4916.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aal4916 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caversaccio M, Gavaghan K, Wimmer W et al (2017) Robotic cochlear implantation: surgical procedure and first clinical experience. Acta Otolaryngol 137:447–454.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2017.1278573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Labadie RF, Balachandran R, Noble JH et al (2014) Minimally invasive image-guided cochlear implantation surgery: first report of clinical implementation. Laryngoscope 124:1915–1922.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stenin I, Hansen S, Becker M et al (2014) Minimally invasive multiport surgery of the lateral skull base. Biomed Res Int 2014:379295.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/379295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stenin I, Hansen S, Nau-Hermes M et al (2017) Minimally invasive, multi-port approach to the lateral skull base: a first in vitro evaluation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12:889–895.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-017-1533-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klenzner T, Ngan CC, Knapp FB et al (2009) New strategies for high precision surgery of the temporal bone using a robotic approach for cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266:955–960.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0825-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell B, Gerber N, Williamson T et al (2013) In vitro accuracy evaluation of image-guided robot system for direct cochlear access. Otol Neurotol 34:1284–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31829561b6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williamson T, Gavaghan K, Gerber N et al (2017) Population statistics approach for safety assessment in robotic cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001357 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wimmer W, Venail F, Williamson T et al (2014) Semiautomatic cochleostomy target and insertion trajectory planning for minimally invasive cochlear implantation. Biomed Res Int.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/596498 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verbist BM, Skinner MW, Cohen LT et al (2010) Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol 31:722–730.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181d279e0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wimmer W, Gavaghan K, Williamson T, Gerber N, Caversaccio M, Weber S (2016) Electrode array insertion for minimally invasive robotic cochlear implantation with a guide tube. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11:80–81Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williamson T, Gavaghan K, Gerber N et al (2017) Population statistics approach for safety assessment in robotic cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 38:759–764.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morrel WG, Jayawardena ADL, Amberg MS et al (2018) Revision surgery following minimally invasive image-guided cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27636 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Schneider
    • 1
  • Igor Stenin
    • 2
  • Juan Ansó
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Hermann
    • 1
  • Fabian Mueller
    • 1
  • Gabriela Pereira Bom Braga
    • 1
  • Christoph Rathgeb
    • 1
  • Wilhelm Wimmer
    • 1
  • Joerg Schipper
    • 2
  • Julia Kristin
    • 2
  • Marco Caversaccio
    • 3
  • Lukas Anschuetz
    • 3
  • Stefan Weber
    • 1
  • Thomas Klenzner
    • 2
  1. 1.ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyUniversity Hospital DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryInselspital, University Hospital BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations