Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 5, 2026
Testing a Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Training System for Optimal Electrode Array Placement in Different Inner Ear Anatomies
Published on: February 6, 2026
Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions considering cochlear geometric
Anni Andersson1, Stephan Geiger2,3, Matti Pekka Iso-Mustajärvi1,4
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Purpose:
Purpose of the present study was to compare the intracochlear trauma coincidentally caused by robotic-assisted and manual cochlear implant electrode array insertions in human temporal bones, and to evaluate the influence of cochlear geometry on insertion outcomes.
Materials And Methods:
Twenty human temporal bones, paired according to cochlear size, underwent round window insertion with a HiFocus SlimJ array, either manually or using the iotaSOFT® insertion system. Postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCTs) and micro-CTs were used to measure angular insertion depth (AID) and cochlear dimensions, and to assess electrode scalar location to define the level of trauma. Additionally, a cochlea implant imaging tool was used to measure lateral scala tympani height and estimate angular insertion depth.
Results:
No scalar translocation occurred in the robotic group, whereas three translocations were found in the manual group. Mean trauma scores were lower for robotic insertions (0.30 ± 0.48) compared with manual insertions (0.89 ± 0.93). Manual insertion produced significantly deeper AID (428 ± 82°) than robotic insertions (304 ± 47°, p = 0.004). The robotic group exhibited significantly more extra-cochlear contacts (2.3 ± 1.8) than the manual group (0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.011). Greater AID correlated with more severe trauma (r = 0.682, p = 0.001). Smaller cochlear dimensions were associated with deeper estimated AID and increased trauma. Lower lateral scala tympani height was found for the translocations compared to non-translocations, indicating an influence on trauma risk.
Conclusion:
Robotic-assisted cochlear implantation resulted in less trauma occurrence compared to manual insertion. However, trauma risk was strongly influenced by cochlear geometry and insertion depth. These findings indicate that cochlear geometry is associated with insertion trauma and may support future patient-specific planning and robotic-assisted insertion strategies to reduce trauma.