AzTrials
AzTrials

Cochlear ImplantationNCT06951594

Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Electrode Array Insertion

A study testing Robotic in people with Cochlear Implantation and Robotics, run by Bruce J Gantz at 1 site in United States.

Recruiting

Looking for participants now. Contact the study team or a site below to ask about taking part.

Sites and contacts
Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Robotics-assisted electrode insertion overcomes many surgeon-related kinetic limitations such as insertion speed, tremor, drift, and lack of accurate force control. In human cadaveric cochleae, robotics-assisted electrode insertion causes less intracochlear trauma compared to manual insertion. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 80 years
Conditions the study is for
Cochlear Implantation, Robotics
What is being tested?
Robotic
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
30 Jun 2025to 31 Aug 2028
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Not yet: the study is under way

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 80 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Candidate for a cochlear implant according to CMS guidelines
  • Willingness to comply with all study requirements
  • Patent cochlea and normal cochlear anatomy, as confirmed by preoperative imaging
  • English speaking

Who cannot join

  • Medical or psychological conditions that contraindicate undergoing surgery
  • Ossification or any other cochlear anomaly that might prevent complete insertion of the electrode array.
  • Unrealistic expectations on the part of the candidate and/or candidate's family, regarding the possible benefits, risks, and limitations that are inherent to the surgical procedure(s) and prosthetic devices.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.

Rachel Scheperle, PhD contact

319-384-9031

oto-electrophys@uiowa.edu

Camille Dunn, PhD contact

319-353-8776

camille-dunn@uiowa.edu

United States1 site, 1 recruiting
  • University of Iowa Healthcare

    Iowa City, Iowa, 52242

    Rachel Scheperle, PhD, 319-384-9031, oto-electrophys@uiowa.edu

    Camille Dunn, PhD, 319-353-8776, camille-dunn@uiowa.edu

    Recruiting

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Iowa Cochlear Implant Clinical Research Center Study on Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Electrode Array Insertion

Robotics-assisted electrode insertion overcomes many surgeon-related kinetic limitations such as insertion speed, tremor, drift, and lack of accurate force control. In human cadaveric cochleae, robotics-assisted electrode insertion causes less intracochlear trauma compared to manual insertion. Whether this technical advance results in functional benefits in CI patients remains unknown. To address this critical knowledge gap, the investigators will compare cochlear trauma assessed using CT scans, cochlear and AN function assessed using ECochG and/or the eCAP, and clinical outcomes quantified by postoperative residual acoustic hearing and speech perception scores between participants randomized to either manual or robotics-assisted electrode array insertion.

Read the detailed description

Electrode insertion force is a critical determinant of the degree/amount of intracochlear trauma caused by CI surgery. It is affected by the speed of electrode array insertion, with higher insertion speeds leading to greater insertion forces. In addition, rapid electrode array insertions with higher forces are associated with translocation of electrode arrays from the scala tympani into the scala media or vestibuli which leads to lower performance and higher rates of loss of residual hearing. Furthermore, variability in insertion force during electrode insertion can cause dramatic increases in intracochlear fluid pressure which appears to be traumatic. The recent FDA-approved iotaSOFT™ insertion system is designed to address these issues by controlling the speed of implant insertion (0.1-1.0 mm/sec) with reduced insertion force and variability. Use of the iotaSOFT™ insertion system significantly reduces the maximum insertion force, variation in insertion force and intracochlear pressure changes over time, which leads to decreased intracochlear trauma compared with manual insertion in cadavers. In addition, this robotics-assisted insertion system can be used with ECochG monitoring systems, which enables response dynamics that can dramatically reduce electrode array stopping distances (1-2 µm of further electrode array advancement) compared to the kinetics of human manual insertion (~1 mm) once a change in intraoperative ECochG response is detected. Theoretically, robotics-assisted electrode array insertion should result in better preserved structural and functional integrity of the peripheral auditory system due to reduced intracochlear trauma. However, this theoretical possibility has not been tested in human CI users.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators propose to determine the functional benefits of using robotics-assisted electrode insertion in reducing intracochlear trauma. This will be achieved by comparing trauma to the cochlea from electrode insertion based on postoperative CT scans, electrode impedance, the functional status of the cochlea and the AN, as well as preservation of acoustic hearing in participants randomized to have the electrode array inserted manually or with the iotaSOFT™ insertion system. The investigators hypothesize that robotics-assisted electrode insertion will better preserve peripheral structural and functional integrity by reducing intraoperative trauma. The investigators expect that participants with robotics-assisted electrode insertions will show smaller trauma scores based on CT scans, lower electrode impedance, better functional statuses of the AN, higher ENI indices, less hearing loss, and improved speech perception scores than participants with manual electrode insertions.

Being tested
Robotic
Keywords
cochlear implantation, robotics, hearing preservation

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • RoboticDevice

    The iotaSOFT™ Insertion System is an FDA approved cochlear implant (CI) electrode array insertion tool. It provides surgeons with consistent insertion speed and force. The system consists of a drive unit connected to a touch screen control console and foot pedal interface. The surgeon secures the base to the skull with two pre-loaded self-drilling bone screws. The drive unit is placed into the base and the adjustable drive head is coupled to a CI electrode. Before insertion begins, the surgeon selects the desired speed of insertion. the surgeon controls the electrode insertion forward and reverse motion via foot pedal while guiding the electrode array into the cochlea with standard CI instrumentation. Upon the completion of electrode array insertion, the drive head and unit are uncoupled from the electrode lead and removed from the patient for disposal.

Study groups in NCT06951594
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
RobotExperimentalThe iotaSOFT™ Insertion System is an FDA approved cochlear implant (CI) electrode array insertion tool. It will be used to assist the surgeon with the cochlear implant insertion.
Receives: Device: Robotic
ManualNo interventionManual cochlear implant surgical procedure without robotic assistance.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. scalar translocation

    Postoperative CT scan will be used to assess scalar translocation

    Measured: Postoperative standard of care CT (approximately at activation or 2 weeks)

  2. Angular Insertion depth

    Angle of the electrode array inside the cochlea, measured relative to the round window membrane.

    Measured: Postoperative standard of care CT (approximately at activation or 2 weeks)

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Impedance

    resistance to the flow of current for each active electrode

    Measured: initial activation and at 3 and 6 months post CI

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted30 Apr 2025
  2. Study start30 Jun 2025
  3. Primary completion31 Mar 2028 (estimated)
  4. Study completion31 Aug 2028 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
100 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06951594
Sponsor's protocol ID
202210440
Status last verified
Oct 2026
First submitted
15 Apr 2025
Last updated
16 Oct 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
Individual data sharing
No: Aggregated data will be shared. Individual primary and secondary outcomes are too complex for IPD

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Robotic in people with Cochlear Implantation and Robotics, run by Bruce J Gantz at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Rachel Scheperle, PhD (319-384-9031, oto-electrophys@uiowa.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

scalar translocation (time frame: Postoperative standard of care CT (approximately at activation or 2 weeks)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Oct 2026.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in