Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29738386›Full record

ArticleOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2018

Prevalence of Extracochlear Electrodes: Computerized Tomography Scans, Cochlear Implant Maps, and Operative Reports.

Jourdan T Holder, David M Kessler, Jack H Noble, René H Gifford, Robert F Labadie

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Extracochlear Electrode Insertion in the Petrous Area in Cochlear Implantation.The journal of international advanced otology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jourdan T HolderDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences.
David M KesslerDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences.
Jack H NobleDepartment of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
René H GiffordDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences.
Robert F LabadieDepartment of Otolaryngology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Vanderbilt University · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related ResearchR01DC008408 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI LABADIE, ROBERT F · 2007 to 2022
$7.6M
Model-based Cochlear Implant ProgrammingR01DC014037 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI NOBLE, JACK · 2014 to 2024
$5.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008408NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014037
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify and compare the number of cochlear implant (CI) electrodes found to be extracochlear on postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans, the number of basal electrodes deactivated during standard CI mapping (without knowledge of the postoperative CT scan), and the extent of electrode insertion noted by the surgeon. STUDY

designRetrospective.

settingAcademic Medical Center.

methodsTwo hundred sixty-two patients underwent standard cochlear implantation and postoperative temporal bone CT scanning. Scans were analyzed to determine the number of extracochlear electrodes. Standard CI programming had been completed without knowledge of the extracochlear electrodes identified on the CT. These standard CI maps were reviewed to record the number of deactivated basal electrodes. Lastly, each operative report was reviewed to record the extent of reported electrode insertion.

results13.4% (n = 35) of CIs were found to have at least one electrode outside of the cochlea on the CT scan. Review of CI mapping indicated that audiologists had deactivated extracochlear electrodes in 60% (21) of these cases. Review of operative reports revealed that surgeons correctly indicated the number of extracochlear electrodes in 6% (2) of these cases.

conclusionsExtracochlear electrodes were correctly identified audiologically in 60% of cases and in surgical reports in 6% of cases; however, it is possible that at least a portion of these cases involved postoperative electrode migration. Given these findings, postoperative CT scans can provide information regarding basal electrode location, which could help improve programming accuracy, associated frequency allocation, and audibility with appropriate deactivation of extracochlear electrodes.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsAdultAudiologyCochleaCochlear ImplantationFemaleForeign-Body MigrationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID29738386
PMCPMC7197293
OpenAlexW2802992145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.