Educational Value of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Ear Surgery

Initial Experience With Robotic-Assisted Otologic and Lateral Skull Base Surgery

Robotic-assisted surgery has gained popularity for otolaryngology procedures. It provides high-definition images and surgical precision to perform diverse procedures. It is an alternative to the operating microscope, endoscope, or exoscope when reaching hidden anatomical structures in the ear. In this proof-of-concept study, we aim to demonstrate the possibility of using a robotic-assisted device to perform ear surgery in conjunction with the microscope or the endoscope. In total, there were 9 ear and lateral skull base procedures performed with the use of robotic-assisted surgery. All surgeons underwent surveys to assess the performance and workload of the device compared to the microscope or endoscope. There were no postoperative complications. Robotic-assisted surgery was optimal for providing high image quality, ergonomics, and maintaining surgical performance. The size of the device and mental demand were higher compared to the microscope or endoscope. Robotic-assisted surgery can be an adjuvant to perform otologic and neurotologic surgery.

Patient-Reported Postoperative Pain and Numbness: Applications for Endoscopic vs. Microscopic Ear Surgery

Background: Transcanal endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) avoids a postauricular incision, which has been shown to minimize pain and numbness. Our objective is to assess how much patients value minimizing pain and numbness relative to other postoperative otologic outcomes. Methods: Cross-sectional anonymous surveys were distributed to otolaryngology clinic patients in a tertiary care center. Patients were instructed to rate how much they value various outcomes when undergoing hypothetical ear surgery on a scale of 0 (not important) to 10 (very important). Results: 102 patients responded. Ten percent of survey respondents were Spanish-speaking. Outcomes of the highest importance included hearing (mean 9.3; SD 1.9), staff friendliness (8.9; 1.8), numbness (8.3; 2.4), and pain (8.1; 2.5). Outcomes of moderate importance included time spent under anesthesia (7.0; 3.2), scar visibility (6.3; 3.5), incision size (5.5; 3.4), incision hidden in the ear canal (5.4, 3.9), and surgery cost to the hospital (5.1; 3.9). In linear regression analysis, increasing age was associated with decreased value placed on incision size (p < 0.001) and scar visibility (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients placed a high value on minimizing pain and numbness after ear surgery, nearly as much as a good hearing outcome. These patient-centric outcomes are important in justifying the minimally invasive approach of TEES.