Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32556785›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 Surgery2021

Analysis of cochlear implant revision surgeries.

Birgul Gumus, Armagan S İncesulu, Ercan Kaya, M Kezban Gurbuz, M Ozgur Pınarbaslı

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, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Auricular cartilage flap for device salvage in revision cochlear implant surgery.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
  7. Article
  8. [Analysis of cochlear reimplantation surgery and factors influencing postoperative auditory and speech function].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  9. [Comparison and study of multiple scales results in children with cochlear reimplantation, mainly the speech, spatial, and other qualities of hearing scale for parents].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mechanism underlying and prevention of electrode migration in cochlear implants.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
  15. Changes in Revision Cochlear Implantation and Device Failure Profiles.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2023
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Birgul GumusDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey. birgulag@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9283-4974
Armagan S İncesuluDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8467-5950
Ercan KayaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9961-0313
M Kezban GurbuzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7446-9547
M Ozgur PınarbaslıDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1486-9551
Eskişehir Osmangazi University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the reasons for cochlear implant (CI) revision surgeries in pediatric and adult groups.

methodsA total of 490 CIs were used for 423 patients between August 2005 and August 2019. Among these, patients who underwent a CI revision surgery were identified retrospectively. The reasons for CI revision surgeries were classified mainly as medical problems and device failure. These were also determined according to implant brands.

resultsOf 423 patients with a CI surgery, 27 (6.3%) underwent a CI revision surgery. The revision implant rate was 4.9% for the pediatric group and 1.4% for the adult group. Five patients underwent a CI revision surgery due to medical problems (23.8%) and 16 due to device failure (76.2%) in the pediatric group, while 3 patients (50.0%) underwent a CI revision surgery due to medical problems and 3 (50.0%) due to device failure in adults.

conclusionsA CI surgery is safe for patients with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss, although a CI revision surgery has some potential. Device failure is the most common cause in children. It may be due to early implantation, frequent fall when children learn walking, or impaired vestibular function.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHumansProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesCochlear implantDevice failureHard failureMedical problemsRevision surgerySoft failure

Identifiers

PMID32556785
OpenAlexW3036504239

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.