ArticleSaudi medical journal2021
Clinical profile and management of revision cochlear implant surgeries.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cochlear implantation impact on health service utilisation and social outcomes: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes Following Revision Cochlear Implantation: A Single-Center Experience.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026Article
- Health service use, health outcomes and treatment costs of adults with a cochlear implant: a retrospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Comparison of Conventional Technique with Suture Fixation and Subperiosteal Tight Pocket Technique on Revision Cochlear Implantation Rate.The journal of international advanced otology · 2024Article
- Review
- A novel method for evaluating mastoid defect regrowth after cochlear implantation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2021
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo discuss our experience with managing cochlear implant cases that required revision surgery.
methodsA retrospective case series study including data from 922 cochlear implant patients at an academic tertiary center was evaluated retrospectively. All patients who underwent revision cochlear implant (CI) surgery between January 2011 and July 2017 were included. The following data were collected: patient demographic data, details on the first implant, reasons for the revision, duration from initial implantation to revision, type of device, and management.
resultsOut of 922 CI patients, 37 (4%) underwent revision surgery, comprising 33 children and 4 adults. The most common reason for revision surgery, at 28/37 cases (75.6%), was device failure. Surgical and medical aetiologies were responsible for 9/37 (24.3%) revisions. The mean duration from the initial implantation to the revision surgery was 29 months.
conclusionRevision CI surgery is not uncommon after initial implantation. Cochlear implant programs must implement long-term follow-up processes for CI users. Whenever a patient's rehabilitated performance regresses, the cause should be investigated to determine whether subsequent reimplantation is necessary.
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.