ArticleIranian journal of otorhinolaryngology2020
Comparison of the Pediatric Cochlear Implantation Using Round Window and Cochleostomy.
Article in Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Value of Endoscopic Exposure of Round Window in Cochlear Implant via Facial Recess.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2024Article
- Complications of Cochleostomy Versus Round Window Surgical Approaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2022Review
- Robot-Assisted Electrode Array Insertion Becomes Available in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: First Report and an Intra-Individual Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCochlear implantation (CI) is now regarded as a standard treatment for children with severe to profound sensor neural hearing loss. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the round window approach (RWA) and standard cochleostomy approach (SCA) in the preservation of residual hearing after CI in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted on 97 pediatric patients receiving CI with 12-month follow-up. The study population was divided into two groups according to the surgical approaches they received, including RWA and SCA. Consequently, the patients were evaluated based on the Categories of Auditory Performance scale (CAP) and Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test 45-60 days and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-surgery.
resultsThe CAP and SIR mean scores increased in both groups during the 12-month follow-up. This upward trend was significant in both groups (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in any of the follow-up stages regarding the CAP mean score. The mean SIR score (P=1.14±0.40) was significantly higher in the RWA group 3(P=0.001), 6(P=0.008), and 9(P=0.006) months after the surgery. However, there was no significant difference between the RWA and SCA groups, regarding 1-year SIR (P=0.258).
conclusionThe CI with either RWA or SCA could improve hearing and speech performance in pediatric patients. Although mid-term speech intelligibility was better for RWA, there was no significant difference in the 1-year outcome between these two methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.