ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2020
Evaluating Reasons for Revision Surgery and Device Failure Rates in Patients Who Underwent Cochlear Implantation Surgery.
Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Trends in neuroprosthetic technologies to restore sensations.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Review
- Biohybrid cochlear implants: neural interfaces, regenerative pathways, and translational benchmarks.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes Following Revision Cochlear Implantation: A Single-Center Experience.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026Article
- Identification of decision-making criteria for device selection by cochlear implant patients - a pilot study.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 · 2026Article
- Vestibular electrode position stability over time.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 · 2025Article
- Overcoming failure: improving acceptance and success of implanted neural interfaces.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Review
- Long-Term Outcomes Following Cochlear Implantation: Device "Aging" and Hearing Performance.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Complications in 2000 adult and paediatric cochlear implants: what to expect and when.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025Article
- Determinants of Success in Revision Cochlear Implant Surgeries: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Patient, Surgical, and Radiological Factors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- What Did We Learn from Our Cochlear Implant Revisions?Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Retrospective cohort study analyzing temporal bone cortical thickness and perioperative complication rate, in pediatric cochlear implantation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Lessons learned in delayed identification of a misplaced electrode array in the vestibule.Journal of otology · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Changes in Revision Cochlear Implantation and Device Failure Profiles.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2024Article
- Cochlear implant positioning: development and validation of an automatic method using computed tomography image analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- The experience of device failure after cochlear implantation.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2023Article
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Understanding the reasons for cochlear implant (CI) revision surgery and device failure rates is important for clinicians when counseling patients who are considering CI. Objectives: To analyze the revision surgery rate, reasons for revision surgery, and device failure and survival rates of different device models in recipients of CIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, cochlear implants at Samsung Medical Center, a tertiary referral center, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent CI surgery from October 2001 to March 2019 were included. In the device survival analysis, the first revision surgery was considered the primary event, and the end point of observation was June 1, 2019. Interventions: Therapeutic and rehabilitative CI surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The revision surgery rate, reasons for revision surgery, and the failure and survival rates of different device models were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to present both the device survival and cumulative survival curves with rates. Results: In this study, 43 of 925 patients with CIs (4.6%) underwent a revision surgery. Device failure was the most common reason (28 of 43 patients [65%]). Flap-associated problems and migration of the inner device were the next most important reasons (4 of 43 [9.3%] each). Overall, the 10-year cumulative survival rate of CI surgery was 94.4%, and the device survival rate was 96.0%. Thirteen different CI devices from 4 different manufacturers were implanted, and no meaningful differences in device failure were found among CI manufacturers or devices (hazard ratios for cumulative survival: Cochlear, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.72-3.88]; Advanced Bionics, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.61-4.53]; Med-El, reference; hazard ratios for device survival: Cochlear, 1.65 [95% CI, 0.55-4.99]; Advanced Bionics, 1.93 [95% CI, 0.56-6.74]; Med-El, reference). Several recalls were issued by manufacturers during the study period, and after excluding the recalled devices, the device survival rates for 5, 10, and 15 years were 98.2%, 97.7%, and 94.9%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Generally, implanted devices remain safe and stable for a long time, and no significant differences in survival rates were found between device types or manufacturers. Device failure was the main reason for CI revision, followed by flap-associated problems and migration of the inner device.
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.