Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36294411›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Cochlear Implantation in Obliterated Cochlea: A Retrospective Analysis and Comparison between the IES Stiff Custom-Made Device and the Split-Array and Regular Electrodes.

Julia Anna Christine Hoffmann, Athanasia Warnecke, Max Eike Timm, Eugen Kludt, Nils Kristian Prenzler, Lutz Gärtner, Thomas Lenarz, Rolf Benedikt Salcher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Auditory outcomes after scala vestibuli array insertion are similar to those after scala tympani insertion 1 year after cochlear implantation.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
  2. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia Anna Christine HoffmannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Athanasia WarneckeDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Max Eike TimmDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Eugen KludtDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Nils Kristian PrenzlerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Lutz GärtnerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2280-9487
Thomas LenarzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9307-5989
Rolf Benedikt SalcherDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hannover Medial School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anatomical malformations, obliterations of the cochlea, or re-implantations pose particular challenges in cochlear implantation. Treatment methods rely on radiological and intraoperative findings and include incomplete insertion, the implantation of a double array, and radical cochleostomy. In addition, a stiff electrode array, e.g., the IE stiff (IES) custom-made device (CMD, MED-EL), was prescribed individually for those special cases and pre-inserted prior to facilitate cochlear implantation in challenging cases. Data on outcomes after implantation in obliterated cochleae are usually based on individual case reports since standardised procedures are lacking. A retrospective analysis was conducted to analyse our cases on obliterated cochleae treated with MED-EL devices in order to allow the different cases to be compared. Impedances and speech perception data of patients treated with the IES CMD and the double array were retrospectively compared to patients treated with a STANDARD or FLEX electrode array (the REGULAR group). Patients with a Split-Array CMD had a poor speech perception when compared to patients treated with the IES CMD device. Thus, the IES CMD can successfully be used in patients with obliterated cochleae who would otherwise be non-users, candidates for a Split-Array CMD, or candidates for partial insertion with insufficient cochlear coverage.

Indexed as

cochlear implantelectrode impedancefibrous tissue growthinner earinsertion probeobliteration of the inner earossification

Identifiers

PMID36294411
PMCPMC9605638
OpenAlexW4306385986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.