Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29780962›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2017

Challenging aspects of contemporary cochlear implant electrode array design.

Pavel Mistrík, Claude Jolly, Daniel Sieber, Ingeborg Hochmair

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Early experience with next-generation wireless technology for detecting cochlear implant electrode tip fold-over and placement without X-ray: nucleus SmartNav.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Influence of surgeon experience on the incidence of tip fold-over with slim preformed cochlear implant electrodes.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  5. Cochlear Duct Length: Rethinking Its Role in Auditory Outcomes.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  6. An Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Marker for Local Spiral Ganglion Neuron Degeneration: The Failure Index.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Location of the Tympanic Nerve Relative to the Round and Oval Windows.The journal of international advanced otology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Insertion Depth for Optimized Positioning of Precurved Cochlear Implant Electrodes.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Pavel MistríkMED-EL Company, Austria.
Claude JollyMED-EL Company, Austria.
Daniel SieberMED-EL Company, Austria.
Ingeborg HochmairMED-EL Company, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA design comparison of current perimodiolar and lateral wall electrode arrays of the cochlear implant (CI) is provided. The focus is on functional features such as acoustic frequency coverage and tonotopic mapping, battery consumption and dynamic range. A traumacity of their insertion is also evaluated.

methodsReview of up-to-date literature.

resultsPerimodiolar electrode arrays are positioned in the basal turn of the cochlea near the modiolus. They are designed to initiate the action potential in the proximity to the neural soma located in spiral ganglion. On the other hand, lateral wall electrode arrays can be inserted deeper inside the cochlea, as they are located along the lateral wall and such insertion trajectory is less traumatic. This class of arrays targets primarily surviving neural peripheral processes. Due to their larger insertion depth, lateral wall arrays can deliver lower acoustic frequencies in manner better corresponding to cochlear tonotopicity. In fact, spiral ganglion sections containing auditory nerve fibres tuned to low acoustic frequencies are located deeper than 1 and half turn inside the cochlea. For this reason, a significant frequency mismatch might be occurring for apical electrodes in perimodiolar arrays, detrimental to speech perception. Tonal languages such as Mandarin might be therefore better treated with lateral wall arrays. On the other hand, closer proximity to target tissue results in lower psychophysical threshold levels for perimodiolar arrays. However, the maximal comfort level is also lower, paradoxically resulting in narrower dynamic range than that of lateral wall arrays. Battery consumption is comparable for both types of arrays.

conclusionsLateral wall arrays are less likely to cause trauma to cochlear structures. As the current trend in cochlear implantation is the maximal protection of residual acoustic hearing, the lateral wall arrays seem more suitable for hearing preservation CI surgeries. Future development could focus on combining the advantages of both types: perimodiolar location in the basal turn extended to lateral wall location for higher turn locations.

Indexed as

Cochlear implant

Identifiers

PMID29780962
PMCPMC5956130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.