Suppr超能文献

人工耳蜗植入手术中机器人与手动电极插入的实验研究

Robotic Versus Manual Electrode Insertion in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Experimental Study.

作者信息

Alhabib Salman F, Alzhrani Farid, Alsanosi Abdulrahman, Al-Amro Mariam, Alballaa Abdulaziz, Shami Ibrahim, Hagr Abdulrahman, Alahmadi Asma, Sharif Tahir, Stichling Maximilian, Matulic Marco, Assadi Masoud Zoka, Abdelsamad Yassin, Almuhawas Fida

机构信息

King Abdullah Ear Specialist Center (KAESC), King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Feb;18(1):21-29. doi: 10.21053/ceo.2024.00253. Epub 2024 Dec 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This experimental study compared the precision and surgical outcomes of manual versus robotic electrode insertions in cochlear implantation.

METHODS

The study was conducted on formalin-fixed cadaveric heads, with nine senior neurotologists performing both manual and robotic insertions.

RESULTS

The results showed no statistically significant differences between the two methods in terms of insertion angle, cochlear coverage, or electrode coverage. However, the robotic method demonstrated a significantly slower and more controlled insertion speed (0.1 mm/sec) compared to manual insertion (0.66±0.31 mm/sec), which is crucial for minimizing intra-cochlear force and pressures. Although robotic insertions resulted in fewer complications such as tip fold-over or scala deviation, there were instances of incomplete insertion.

CONCLUSION

The robotic system provided a consistent and controlled insertion process, potentially standardizing cochlear implant operations and reducing outcome variability. The study concludes that robotic-assisted insertion offers significant advantages in controlling insertion speed and consistency, supporting the continued development and clinical evaluation of robotic systems for cochlear implant surgery.

摘要

目的

本实验研究比较了人工与机器人电极植入人工耳蜗的精度和手术效果。

方法

该研究在经福尔马林固定的尸体头部进行,九名资深神经耳科医生分别进行了人工和机器人植入操作。

结果

结果显示,两种方法在插入角度、耳蜗覆盖范围或电极覆盖范围方面无统计学显著差异。然而,与人工植入(0.66±0.31毫米/秒)相比,机器人方法的插入速度明显较慢且更可控(0.1毫米/秒),这对于将耳蜗内的力和压力降至最低至关重要。虽然机器人植入导致诸如电极尖端折叠或鼓阶偏移等并发症较少,但也有不完全植入的情况。

结论

机器人系统提供了一致且可控的植入过程,有可能使人工耳蜗手术标准化并减少结果的变异性。该研究得出结论,机器人辅助植入在控制植入速度和一致性方面具有显著优势,支持继续开发和临床评估用于人工耳蜗手术 的机器人系统。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae59/11917199/a515fe1ab79a/ceo-2024-00253f1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验