Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: To compare vestibular outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) surgery, between robotic-assisted insertion of the electrodes versus manual insertion.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a monocentric retrospective study. From March 2021, the robotic system RobOtol© was used for all CI cases. We compared this robotic-assisted insertion group with a manual insertion group of patients who received a CI between July 2020 and March 2021. Primary objective was vestibular outcome. We used objective vestibular function tests: caloric testing, Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (VEMP), and Video Head Impulse Test (VHIT). Secondary objectives were postoperative complications including patient-reported postoperative vertigo.
UNASSIGNED: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of caloric testing, VEMP or VHIT outcomes. In patient-reported outcomes, there was significantly more vertigo in the manual insertion group compared with robotic-assisted insertion.
UNASSIGNED: It is hypothesized that a non-traumatic insertion would cause less vestibular dysfunction postoperatively. Larger prospective studies are required to determine whether robotic-assisted CI insertion has a significant impact on vestibular outcomes in CI surgery.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a monocentric retrospective study. From March 2021, the robotic system RobOtol© was used for all CI cases. We compared this robotic-assisted insertion group with a manual insertion group of patients who received a CI between July 2020 and March 2021. Primary objective was vestibular outcome. We used objective vestibular function tests: caloric testing, Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (VEMP), and Video Head Impulse Test (VHIT). Secondary objectives were postoperative complications including patient-reported postoperative vertigo.
UNASSIGNED: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of caloric testing, VEMP or VHIT outcomes. In patient-reported outcomes, there was significantly more vertigo in the manual insertion group compared with robotic-assisted insertion.
UNASSIGNED: It is hypothesized that a non-traumatic insertion would cause less vestibular dysfunction postoperatively. Larger prospective studies are required to determine whether robotic-assisted CI insertion has a significant impact on vestibular outcomes in CI surgery.
摘要：
■为了比较耳蜗植入（CI）手术的前庭结局，在机器人辅助插入电极与手动插入之间。
■我们进行了单中心回顾性研究。从2021年3月起，机器人系统RobOtol©用于所有CI病例。我们比较了这个机器人辅助插入组与手动插入组在2020年7月至2021年3月期间接受aCI的患者组。主要目标是前庭结局。我们使用客观前庭功能测试：热量测试，前庭诱发肌源性电位(VEMP),和视频头脉冲测试（VHIT）。次要目标是术后并发症，包括患者报告的术后眩晕。
■我们发现两组在热量测试方面没有统计学上的显着差异，VEMP或VHIT结果。在患者报告的结果中，与机器人辅助插入组相比,手动插入组的眩晕明显更多.
■据推测，非创伤性插入术后前庭功能障碍较少。需要更大的前瞻性研究来确定机器人辅助CI插入是否对CI手术的前庭结局有显著影响。
■我们进行了单中心回顾性研究。从2021年3月起，机器人系统RobOtol©用于所有CI病例。我们比较了这个机器人辅助插入组与手动插入组在2020年7月至2021年3月期间接受aCI的患者组。主要目标是前庭结局。我们使用客观前庭功能测试：热量测试，前庭诱发肌源性电位(VEMP),和视频头脉冲测试（VHIT）。次要目标是术后并发症，包括患者报告的术后眩晕。
■我们发现两组在热量测试方面没有统计学上的显着差异，VEMP或VHIT结果。在患者报告的结果中，与机器人辅助插入组相比,手动插入组的眩晕明显更多.
■据推测，非创伤性插入术后前庭功能障碍较少。需要更大的前瞻性研究来确定机器人辅助CI插入是否对CI手术的前庭结局有显著影响。
