Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32342198›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2020

Comparison of electrophysiological parameters between perimodiolar and lateral wall electrodes in paediatric cochlear implant users.

A Zarowski, A Molisz, E A M Mylanus, J H M Miserus, M Leblans, J van Dinther, J Siebert, E F Offeciers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

A ZarowskiEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, AZ Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium. Andrzej.Zarowski@GZA.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8811-0655
A MoliszDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-1581
E A M MylanusDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Donders Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7933-9995
J H M MiserusDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Donders Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
M LeblansEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, AZ Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium.
J van DintherEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, AZ Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5275-7852
J SiebertDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-271X
E F OffeciersEuropean Institute for ORL-HNS, AZ Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3181-9823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose(1) To compare the in vivo impedances of electrical contacts of the Nucleus Contour Advance (CA) perimodiolar electrodes and the Nucleus Slim Straight (SS) lateral wall electrodes. (2) To compare the relation between the electrode contact impedances and the behavioural T-/C-levels for both types of electrodes.

methodsRetrospective case review in two quaternary otologic referral centres was performed. Data on the impedance of the electrode contacts and the T-/C-levels have been collected from 70 consecutive paediatric CI patients.

results(1) SS electrodes show significantly higher impedance values of the contacts compared to the CA electrodes. This can be explained by differences in the active surface of the electrode contacts and is true for the whole electrode arrays. (2) There are significant negative correlations observed between the impedances of the electrode contacts and the behaviourally measured T-/C-levels. (3) The strength correlation between the electrode impedances and the behavioural T-/C-levels is significantly higher and the T-/C-level variability is lower for the perimodiolar CA electrodes than for the lateral wall SS electrodes.

conclusionsThere exist significant differences in the contact impedance between different cochlear implant electrode arrays. These differences could influence the implant programming parameters and should be considered in any protocols related to automatic implant programming based on objective measures. The predictive value of the electrode impedances for the behavioural T-/C-levels is higher for the perimodiolar CA electrodes than for the lateral wall SS electrodes.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsChildCochleaElectrodesElectrodes, ImplantedHumansRetrospective StudiesBehaviouralCochlear implantImpedanceLateral wallNRTPerimodiolarT-/C-levelThreshold

Identifiers

PMID32342198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.