Status
Conditions
Treatments
Study type
Funder types
Identifiers
About
The purpose of this study is to compare two methods of cochlear implantation : conventional manual insertion versus robot-assisted in order to verify whether robotic insertion provides better performance in the noisy environment.
To do this, we will compare the two methods of insertion of the electrode holder, on 140 patients candidates for cochlear implantation randomized in two groups (70 conventional surgery versus 70 robot-assisted surgery). All patients will be recruited during 17 months, in our Ear, nose and throat (ENT) Department of the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital group, the first center for adult patients established in France (on average 180 patients/year).
Patient will be followed for 9 months with clinical evaluation, imaging, audiometric, listening effort and quality of life assessments. These evaluations will be carried out preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months and 6 months post-activation of the cochlear implant.
Full description
In the case of severe (70 to 90dB loss) and profound (>90dB loss) hearing loss, when conventional hearing aids no longer provide sufficient benefit, cochlear implantation remains the only possible solution for hearing rehabilitation. In implanted patients, a clear improvement in communication in silence is observed, but almost all patients have difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments. Cochlear implantation involves inserting an electrode holder into the cochlea during a surgical procedure under general anesthesia. The insertion of the electrode holder must be as minimally traumatic as possible in order to preserve the cochlear structures and avoid post-operative fibrosis that could impact the auditory outcomes.
The conventional method of this surgery is the manual insertion of the electrode holder. In recent years, robotic assistance, the RobOtol®, has been developed with the aim of avoiding the jerks of the surgeon's hand and improving the precision of the insertion. RobOtol® has had its CE marking since 2016 and is used in several hospitals in France and abroad.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
140 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Isabelle MOSNIER, Dr; Ghizlene LAHLOU, Dr
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal