Hearing preservation outcomes with motorized cochlear implant electrode insertion: matched-cohort observations

Clicks: 3
ID: 310173
2025
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #413 of 490 articles by views in Frontiers in surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 490 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BackgroundCochlear implants (CIs) are an established treatment for severe sensorineural hearing loss and are increasingly used in patients with substantial residual hearing. Preservation of residual hearing is associated with improved outcomes, including speech understanding in noise, natural sound perception, and spatial hearing. Manual electrode insertion, however, is limited by hand tremor and abrupt maneuvers, which can cause intracochlear trauma. Motorized insertion tools (MITs) have been developed to enable slow, continuous, and highly controlled electrode advancement.MethodsWe conducted the first clinical evaluation of the OTOARM/OTODRIVE MIT system. Twenty-six patients underwent implantation with lateral wall electrodes using MIT and were compared with a matched retrospective cohort who received manual insertion. Surgical workflow integration, electrode positioning, residual hearing, speech comprehension, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed at 1 and 6 months postoperatively.ResultsMIT integration into the surgical routine was feasible without major workflow disruptions. Angular insertion depth and electrode positioning did not differ significantly between groups. Patients with favorable preoperative hearing showed slightly better postoperative low-frequency pure tone thresholds in the MIT group, although statistical significance was not reached. Speech comprehension outcomes were comparable between groups. PROMs indicated greater gains in several subscales for the MIT-assisted cohort, despite incomplete data and limited statistical power.ConclusionMIT-assisted cochlear implantation was feasible and demonstrated a tendency toward improved hearing preservation and subjective benefit. However, the small sample size, retrospective controls, and incomplete PROM data limit definitive conclusions. Larger, blinded and randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical value of MIT systems for both objective and patient-reported outcomes.
Reference Key
imported_1768922286_696f9cae723d7 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Weder, Stefan
Journal Frontiers in surgery
Year 2025
DOI
10.3389/fsurg.2025.1700744
URL
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1700744/full
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.