Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 274, Issue 2, pp 715–721 | Cite as

Improvement of the insertion axis for cochlear implantation with a robot-based system

  • Renato Torres
  • Guillaume Kazmitcheff
  • Daniele De Seta
  • Evelyne Ferrary
  • Olivier Sterkers
  • Yann NguyenEmail author
Otology

Abstract

It has previously reported that alignment of the insertion axis along the basal turn of the cochlea was depending on surgeon’ experience. In this experimental study, we assessed technological assistances, such as navigation or a robot-based system, to improve the insertion axis during cochlear implantation. A preoperative cone beam CT and a mastoidectomy with a posterior tympanotomy were performed on four temporal bones. The optimal insertion axis was defined as the closest axis to the scala tympani centerline avoiding the facial nerve. A neuronavigation system, a robot assistance prototype, and software allowing a semi-automated alignment of the robot were used to align an insertion tool with an optimal insertion axis. Four procedures were performed and repeated three times in each temporal bone: manual, manual navigation-assisted, robot-based navigation-assisted, and robot-based semi-automated. The angle between the optimal and the insertion tool axis was measured in the four procedures. The error was 8.3° ± 2.82° for the manual procedure (n = 24), 8.6° ± 2.83° for the manual navigation-assisted procedure (n = 24), 5.4° ± 3.91° for the robot-based navigation-assisted procedure (n = 24), and 3.4° ± 1.56° for the robot-based semi-automated procedure (n = 12). A higher accuracy was observed with the semi-automated robot-based technique than manual and manual navigation-assisted (p < 0.01). Combination of a navigation system and a manual insertion does not improve the alignment accuracy due to the lack of friendly user interface. On the contrary, a semi-automated robot-based system reduces both the error and the variability of the alignment with a defined optimal axis.

Keywords

Robot-based insertion Axis improvement Navigation Computer-assisted surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Jean Loup Bensimon for his contribution to the cone beam CT acquisition used in this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Financial support

This work was supported by research funding by Cifre Grant (No. 269/2015 ANRT/Oticon Medical) and Agir pour l’Audition Fundation (Grant No. 2014/GRE/LL/HB/028-U867)

Conflict of interest

The authors indicate no potential conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

Video 1. Insertion axis planning. This is a 3D surface model of the temporal bone from the cone beam CT slides. The 3D reconstruction of the temporal bone corresponding to Figure 1. We can see a panoramic view of the mastoidectomy hole, the posterior tympanotomy, and the fiducial markers at the cortical bone around the mastoidectomy. Then, it appears a vector corresponding to the scala tympani centerline, we can see that this axis passes through the facial canal position and we cannot access directly to the entry point with the insertion tool. Then, the optimal insertion axis was defined and passes through the posterior tympanotomy (MP4 53761 kb)

Video 2. Insertion tool position assessment. At the end of the alignment, there was obtained 70 photographs of the temporal bone surface and the real position of the insertion tool. Then, a 3D surface model was made by photogrammetry; in this model, we have the axis of the insertion tool at the end of the procedure. Here, we can see a 3D surface model obtained from the cone beam CT and there was added the optimal insertion axis. At last, we can see the fusion of both 3D models and we can observe the real position of the insertion tool at the end of the procedure (green line) corresponding to the optimal insertion axis (MP4 105862 kb)

Video 3. Semi-automated alignment. We observe the semi-automated procedure. Both the insertion tool and the temporal bone were tightly attached to a neuronavigation emitter. A pedal activated the semi-automated movement of the robot arm to align the insertion tool to the optimal insertion axis and to place the insertion tool tip at the entry point to the cochlea (MP4 38593 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gstoettner W, Kiefer J, Baumgartner W-D, Pok S, Peters S, Adunka O (2004) Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 124:348–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li PMMC, Wang H, Northrop C, Merchant SN, Nadol JB (2007) Anatomy of the round window and hook region of the cochlea with implications for cochlear implantation and other endocochlear surgical procedures. Otol Neurotol 28:641–648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Erixon E, Högstorp H, Wadin K, Rask-Andersen H (2009) Variational anatomy of the human cochlea: implications for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 30:14–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martinez-Monedero R, Niparko JK, Aygun N (2011) Cochlear coiling pattern and orientation differences in cochlear implant candidates. Otol Neurotol 32:1086–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meshik X, Holden TA, Chole RA, Hullar TE (2010) Optimal cochlear implant insertion vectors. Otol Neurotol 31:58–63CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torres R, Kazmitcheff G, Bernardeschi D, De Seta D, Bensimon JL, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Nguyen Y (2015) Variability of the mental representation of the cochlear anatomy during cochlear implantation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. doi: 10.1007/s00405-015-3763-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schipper J, Aschendorff A, Arapakis I, Klenzner T, Teszler CB, Ridder GJ, Laszig R (2004) Navigation as a quality management tool in cochlear implant surgery. J Laryngol Otol 118:764–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen Y, Miroir M, Kazmitcheff G, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Grayeli AB (2011) From conception to application of a tele-operated assistance robot for middle ear surgery. Surg Innov 19:241–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grayeli AB, Esquia-Medina G, Nguyen Y, Mazalaigue S, Vellin JF, Lombard B, Kalamarides M, Ferrary E, Sterkers O (2009) Use of anatomic or invasive markers in association with skin surface registration in image-guided surgery of the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 129:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen Y, Miroir M, Vellin JF, Mazalaigue S, Bensimon JL, Bernardeschi D, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Grayeli AB (2011) Minimally invasive computer-assisted approach for cochlear implantation: a human temporal bone study. Surg Innov 18:259–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernardeschi D, Nguyen Y, Villepelet A, Ferrary E, Mazalaigue S, Kalamarides M, Sterkers O (2013) Use of bone anchoring device in electromagnetic computer-assisted navigation in lateral skull base surgery. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 133:1047–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verbist BM, Skinner MW, Cohen LT, Leake PA, James C, Boëx C, Holden TA, Finley CC, Roland PS, Roland JT Jr, Haller M, Patrick JF, Jolly CN, Faltys MA, Briaire JJ, Frijns JH (2010) Consensus panel on a cochlear coordinate system applicable in histologic, physiologic, and radiologic studies of the human cochlea. Otol Neurotol 31:722–730CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wimmer W, Venail F, Williamson T, Akkari M, Gerber N, Weber S, Caversaccio M, Uziel A, Bell B (2014) Semiautomatic cochleostomy target and insertion trajectory planning for minimally invasive cochlear implantation. BioMed Res Int 2014:596498CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerber N, Gavaghan KA, Bell BJ, Williamson TM, Weisstanner C, Caversaccio MD, Weber S (2013) High-accuracy patient-to-image registration for the facilitation of image-guided robotic microsurgery on the head. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60:960–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aschendorff A, Maier W, Jaekel K, Wesarg T, Arndt S, Laszig R, Voss P, Metzger M, Schulze D (2009) Radiologically assisted navigation in cochlear implantation for X-linked deafness malformation. Cochlear Implants Int 10(Suppl 1):14–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cho B, Matsumoto N, Hashizume M (2013) Navigation for cochlear implantation. In: Conference of the Proceeding IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp 5727–5730Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hong J, Matsumoto N, Ouchida R, Komune S, Hashizume M (2009) Medical navigation system for otologic surgery based on hybrid registration and virtual intraoperative computed tomography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56:426–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ansó J, Stahl C, Gerber N, Williamson T, Gavaghan K, Rösler KM, Caversaccio MD, Weber S, Bell B (2014) Feasibility of using EMG for early detection of the facial nerve during robotic direct cochlear access. Otol Neurotol 35:545–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bell B, Williamson T, Gerber N, Gavaghan K, Wimmer W, Kompis M, Weber S, Caversaccio M (2014) An image-guided robot system for direct cochlear access. Cochlear Implants Int 15(Suppl 1):S11–S13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerber N, Bell B, Gavaghan K, Weisstanner C, Caversaccio M, Weber S (2014) Surgical planning tool for robotically assisted hearing aid implantation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:11–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venail F, Bell B, Akkari M, Wimmer W, Williamson T, Gerber N, Gavaghan K, Canovas F, Weber S, Caversaccio M, Uziel A (2015) Manual electrode array insertion through a robot-assisted minimal invasive cochleostomy: feasibility and comparison of two different electrode array subtypes. Otol Neurotol 36:1015–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soteriou E, Grauvogel J, Laszig R, Grauvogel TD (2016) Prospects and limitations of different registration modalities in electromagnetic ENT navigation. Eur Arch Otolaryngol. doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-4063-9 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6 (UPMC Paris 6), Inserm, UMR-S 1159 Réhabilitation chirurgicale mini-invasive et robotisée de l’auditionParisFrance
  2. 2.AP-HP, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service ORL, Otologie, implants auditifs et chirurgie de la base du crâneParisFrance
  3. 3.Université Lille-1, Lille Nord-Europe, Team Defrost InriaLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations