Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Neurol.
Sec. Neuro-Otology
Volume 15 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1430694

The Role of Pressure and Friction Forces in Automated Insertion of Cochlear Implants

Provisionally accepted
Max Fröhlich Max Fröhlich 1,2*Jaro Deutz Jaro Deutz 1,3Matthias Wangenheim Matthias Wangenheim 3Thomas S. Rau Thomas S. Rau 2Andrej Kral Andrej Kral 2Thomas Lenarz Thomas Lenarz 2Daniel Schurzig Daniel Schurzig 1,2
  • 1 MED-EL Research Center, Hannover, Germany
  • 2 Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • 3 Institute of Dynamic and Vibration Research, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Objectives: Despite the success of cochlear implant (CI) surgery for hearing restoration, reducing CI electrode insertion forces is an ongoing challenge with the goal to further reduce post implantation hearing loss. While research in this field shows that both friction and quasistatic pressure forces occur during CI insertion, there is a lack of studies distinguishing between these origins. The present study was conducted to analyze the contribution of both force phenomena during automated CI insertion.Methods: Five MED-EL FLEX28 CI electrode arrays were inserted into both a regular and uncoiled version of the same average scala tympani (ST). Both ST models had a pressure release hole at the apical end which was kept open or closed to quantify pressure forces. ST models were filled with different sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) lubricants (1%, 5%, 10% SDS:water). The viscosity of lubricants was determined using a rheometer. Insertions were conducted with velocities ranging from vs = 0.125 mm/s to 2.0 mm/s Results: Viscosity of SDS lubricants at 20°C was between 1.28, 1.96, and 2.51 mPas for 1%, 5%, 10% SDS respectively which lies well within the values reported for human perilymph. In the uncoiled ST model, forces stayed within the noise floor (maximum: 0.049*10 -3 N ± 1.5*10 -3 N), indicating minimal contribution frorm quasistatic pressure. Conversely, forces using the regular, coiled ST model were at least an order of magnitude larger (minimum: Fmax = 28.95*10 -3 N, v = 1 mm/s, 10% SDS), confirming that friction forces are the main contributor to total insertion forces. An N-way ANOVA revealed that both lubricant viscosity and insertion speed significantly reduce insertion forces (p<.001).This study demonstrates for the first time that at realistic perilymph viscosities, quasistatic pressure forces minimally affect the total insertion force profile during insertion. Mixed friction is the main determinant, which significantly decrease with increased insertion speeds. This suggests that in clinical settings with similar ST geometries and surgical preparation, quasistatic pressure plays a subordinate role.Moreover, the findings indicate that managing the hydrodynamics of the cochlear environment, possibly through pre-surgical preparation or the use of specific lubricants, could effectively reduce insertion forces.

    Keywords: cochlear implant, Insertion force, Pressure, Friction, electrode array, insertion speed, Perilymph Viscosity, robotic surgery

    Received: 10 May 2024; Accepted: 24 Jul 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Fröhlich, Deutz, Wangenheim, Rau, Kral, Lenarz and Schurzig. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Max Fröhlich, MED-EL Research Center, Hannover, Germany

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.