Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32569133›Full record

ArticleOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2020

Insertion Depth for Optimized Positioning of Precurved Cochlear Implant Electrodes.

Rueben A Banalagay, Robert F Labadie, Srijata Chakravorti, Jack H Noble

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation with anatomic or default frequency mapping in postlingual deafness adults.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
    Trial
  2. Curvature analysis of CI electrode arrays: a novel approach to categorize perimodiolar positions without anatomical landmarks.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
  3. Article
  4. Automated objective surgical planning for lateral skull base tumors.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2022
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rueben A BanalagayDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University.
Robert F LabadieDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Srijata ChakravortiDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University.
Jack H NobleDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University.
Vanderbilt University · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related ResearchR01DC008408 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI LABADIE, ROBERT F · 2007 to 2022
$7.6M
Model-based Cochlear Implant ProgrammingR01DC014037 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI NOBLE, JACK · 2014 to 2024
$5.0M
Computer-assisted, image-guided programming of Cochlear ImplantsR01DC014462 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI DAWANT, BENOIT M. · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008408NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014037NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014462
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

hypothesisGeneric guidelines for insertion depth of precurved electrodes are suboptimal for many individuals.

backgroundInsertion depths that are too shallow result in decreased cochlear coverage, and ones that are too deep lift electrodes away from the modiolus and degrade the electro-neural interface. Guidelines for insertion depth are generically applied to all individuals using insertion depth markers on the array that can be referenced against anatomical landmarks.

methodsTo normalize our measurements, we determined the optimal position and insertion vector where a precurved array best fits the cochlea for each patient in an IRB-approved, N = 131 subject CT database. The distances from the most basal electrode on an optimally placed array to anatomical landmarks, including the round window (RW) and facial recess (FR), was measured for all patients.

resultsThe standard deviations of the distance from the most basal electrode to the FR and RW are 0.65 mm and 0.26 mm, respectively. Owing to the high variability in FR distance, using the FR as a landmark to determine insertion depth results in >0.5 mm difference with ideal depth in 44% of cases. Alignment of either of the two most proximal RW markers with the RW would result in over-insertion failures for >80% of cases, whereas the use of the third, most medial marker would result in under-insertion in only 19% of cases.

conclusionsNormalized measurements using the optimized insertion vector show low variance in distance from the basal electrode position to the RW, thereby suggesting it as a better landmark for determining insertion depth than the FR.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCochleaElectrodesElectrodes, ImplantedEquipment FailureHumansRound Window, Ear

Identifiers

PMID32569133
PMCPMC8054969
OpenAlexW3036484777

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.