ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Minimally Traumatic Cochlear Implant Surgery: Expert Opinion in 2010 and 2020.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ear Surgery Training: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Towards a consensus on hearing and structure preservation in cochlear implantation surgery: results of the HEARRING international group survey.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Minimum intraoperative testing battery for cochlear implantation: the international practice trend.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 · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an impedance-based method to monitor the insertion of the electrode array during 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 · 2024Article
- The Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Type on Hearing Preservation.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to discover expert opinion on the surgical techniques and materials most likely to achieve maximum postoperative residual hearing preservation in cochlear implant (CI) surgery and to determine how these opinions have changed since 2010. A previously published questionnaire used in a study published in 2010 was adapted and expanded. The questionnaire was distributed to an international group of experienced CI surgeons. Present results were compared, via descriptive statistics, to those from the 2010 survey. Eighteen surgeons completed the questionnaire. Respondents clearly favored the following: round window insertion, slow array insertion, and the peri- and postoperative use of systematic antibiotics. Insertion depth was regarded as important, and electrode arrays less likely to induce trauma were preferred. The usefulness of dedicated soft-surgery training was also recognized. A lack of agreement was found on whether the middle ear cavity should be flushed with a non-aminoglycoside antibiotic solution or whether a sheath or insertion tube should be used to avoid contaminating the array with blood or bone dust. In conclusion, this paper demonstrates how beliefs about CI soft surgery have changed since 2010 and shows areas of current consensus and disagreement.
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.