Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30484865›Full record

ArticleThe Laryngoscope2019

When to replace legacy cochlear implants for technological upgrades: Indications and outcomes.

Meredith A Holcomb, Jane A Burton, James R Dornhoffer, Elizabeth L Camposeo, Ted A Meyer, Theodore R McRackan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Laryngoscope, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evolving trends in cochlear implant reimplantation: An analysis of causes and outcomes at a tertiary referral cohort.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
  2. Implantation and reimplantation: epidemiology, etiology and pathogenesis over the last 30 years.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 · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Lifetime cost of unilateral cochlear implants in adults: a Monte Carlo simulation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Meredith A HolcombDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Jane A BurtonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.
James R DornhofferDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Elizabeth L CamposeoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Ted A MeyerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Theodore R McRackanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.A.

Funding

South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
Doris Duke FoundationNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institutethe National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UL1TR001450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine indications, surgical efficacy, and audiologic outcomes of replacing Advanced Bionics Clarion C1.2 internal devices (Advanced Bionics, LLC, Valencia, CA) as a means of technology upgrade. STUDY

designRetrospective review, case series.

methodsTen patients were initially implanted as a child (mean age = 3.87 years) and underwent cochlear implant reimplantation (CIR) with current Advanced Bionics internal device as a young adult (mean duration of implant use = 15.66 years). Demographic data and pre- and post-CIR speech perception scores were collected.

resultsTechnology upgrade was the primary (9) or secondary (1) motivation for CIR. No surgical complications were noted, and full insertion was obtained in nine cases. Intraoperative impedance levels and neural response imaging measures were within normal limits for eight patients. At most recent post-CIR follow-up evaluation, all patients (100%) performed within or better than the 95% confidence interval of their pre-CIR word and sentence recognition scores; and 55.6%, 50.0%, and 50.0% of patients performed above the 95% confidence interval of their pre-CIR scores for the CNC words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively.

conclusionPost-CIR audiological benefit was stable or improved compared to pre-CIR results in all categories by 3 months after reactivation. Given these results, patients who are unable to use the most current external processors due to incompatibility with a legacy internal device could consider reimplanation to optimize their overall performance with a cochlear implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:748-753, 2019.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsChildChild, PreschoolDevice RemovalFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInventionsMaleProsthesis DesignReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCochlear implantcochlear implant reimplantation

Identifiers

PMID30484865
PMCPMC6379146

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.