A smart micro-drill for cochleostomy formation: A comparison of cochlear disturbances with manual drilling and a human trial

Abstract Background Cochleostomy formation is a key stage of the cochlear implantation procedure. Minimizing the trauma sustained by the cochlea during this step is thought to be a critical feature in hearing preservation cochlear implantation. The aim of this paper is firstly, to assess the cochlea disturbances during manual and robotic cochleostomy formation. Secondly, to determine whether the use of a smart micro-drill is feasible during human cochlear implantation. Materials and methods The disturbances within the cochlea during cochleostomy formation were analysed in a porcine specimen by creating a third window cochleostomy, preserving the underlying endosteal membrane, on the anterior aspect of the basal turn of the cochlea. A laser vibrometer was aimed at this third window, to assess its movement while a traditional cochleostomy was performed. Six cochleostomies were performed in total, three manually and three with a smart micro-drill. The mean and peak membrane movement was calculated for both manual and smart micro-drill arms, to represent the disturbances sustained within cochlea during cochleostomy formation. The smart micro-drill was further used to perform live human robotic cochleostomies on three adult patients who met the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence criteria for undergoing cochlear implantation. Results In the porcine trial, the smart micro-drill preserved the endosteal membrane in all three cases. The velocity of movement of the endosteal membrane during manual cochleostomy is approximately 20 times higher on average and 100 times greater in peak velocity, than for robotic cochleostomy. The robot was safely utilized in theatre in all three cases and successfully created a bony cochleostomy while preserving the underlying endosteal membrane. Conclusions Our experiments have revealed that controlling the force of drilling during cochleostomy formation and opening the endosteal membrane with a pick will minimize the trauma sustained by the cochlea by a factor of 20. Additionally, the smart micro-drill can safely perform a bony cochleostomy in humans under operative conditions and preserve the integrity of the underlying endosteal membrane.

[1]  P.N. Brett,et al.  A surgical robot for cochleostomy , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[2]  E Lehnhardt,et al.  [Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique]. , 1993, HNO.

[3]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[4]  S Baron,et al.  Percutaneous inner-ear access via an image-guided industrial robot system , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[5]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[6]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[7]  Peter S. Roland,et al.  Method for hearing preservation in cochlear implant surgery , 2005 .

[8]  P. Brett,et al.  An autonomous surgical robot for drilling a cochleostomy: preliminary porcine trial , 2008, Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery.

[9]  C von Ilberg,et al.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. , 1999, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[10]  Bodo Heimann,et al.  A robot-guided minimally invasive approach for cochlear implant surgery: preliminary results of a temporal bone study , 2009, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[11]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[12]  Michael Tykocinski,et al.  Cochleostomy site: Implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  H. N. Kim,et al.  Noise level of drilling instruments during mastoidectomy. , 1999, Yonsei medical journal.

[14]  Stephen J. Rebscher,et al.  Considerations for design of future cochlear implant electrode arrays: electrode array stiffness, size, and depth of insertion. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  Bodo Heimann,et al.  An automated insertion tool for cochlear implants: another step towards atraumatic cochlear implant surgery , 2010, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[16]  M. Hoyle,et al.  The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model. , 2009, Health technology assessment.

[17]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[18]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  Preservation of low frequency hearing in partial deafness cochlear implantation (PDCI) using the round window surgical approach , 2007, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[19]  J Starck,et al.  Sensorineural hearing loss after vibration: an animal model for evaluating prevention and treatment of inner ear hearing loss. , 2001, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[20]  Fred F Telischi,et al.  Conservation of Residual Acoustic Hearing After Cochlear Implantation , 2006, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.