Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Reference Energies for Non-Relativistic Core Ionization Potentials.

Journal of chemical theory and computation·2026

Same author

Social media users experience more political hostility in less economically equal and less democratic societies.

Nature human behaviour·2026

Same author

MYELOstudy: lymph node stage of aggressiveness in medullary thyroid cancer-a retrospective multi-center study analysis.

Updates in surgery·2026

Same author

Erratum: "Anomalous propagators and the particle-particle channel: Bethe-Salpeter equation" [J. Chem. Phys. 162, 134105 (2005)].

The Journal of chemical physics·2026

Same author

[Squamous cell carcinomas of the external auditory canal, treatment of lymph node areas: A multicenter study].

Bulletin du cancer·2025

Same author

Parquet theory for molecular systems: Formalism and static kernel parquet approximation.

The Journal of chemical physics·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 23, 2026

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Published on: June 16, 2022

Pediatric Robotic Cochlear Implantation: Hearing Outcomes.

Antoine Marie¹, Jean-Christophe Leclere², Yann Fleming³

¹ENT and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France, antoine.marie@chu-brest.fr.

Audiology & Neuro-Otology

|April 21, 2026

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Robot-assisted cochlear implantation in children is as safe and effective as manual insertion, showing comparable hearing outcomes and no significant difference in operative time or complications. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Keywords:

Audiometry Cochlear implant Pediatric implant RobOtol Robotic surgery

More Related Videos

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 23, 2026

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Published on: June 16, 2022

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

Area of Science:

Otolaryngology
Pediatric Surgery
Robotics in Medicine

Background:

Cochlear implantation is a standard treatment for pediatric severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss.
Robotic systems may improve surgical precision, but their effect on auditory outcomes is unclear.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the hearing outcomes of robot-assisted versus manual cochlear implantation in children.
To evaluate operative time and perioperative complications between the two techniques.

Main Methods:

Retrospective review of 20 pediatric cochlear implantations (10 manual, 10 robot-assisted with RobOtol).
Audiometric results assessed at 1 month and 1 year post-operation.
Comparison of operative durations and complication rates.

Main Results:

No significant differences in hearing outcomes at 1 month (p=0.82) or 1 year (p=0.36).
Operative times were comparable between manual and robotic approaches (p=0.198).
No major complications or adverse events were observed in either group.

Conclusions:

Robot-assisted cochlear implantation is a safe and effective alternative to manual insertion in pediatric patients.
Comparable hearing results suggest robotic assistance does not negatively impact auditory outcomes.
Prospective multicenter randomized trials are recommended to definitively confirm these findings.