Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095648›Full record

ArticleCochlear implants international2023

Outcomes after revision of Advanced Bionics Clarion 1.2 cochlear implants.

Nicholas S Andresen, Lekha V Yesantharao, Stephen P Bowditch, Deepa J Galaiya, Charles C Della Santina, Francis X Creighton, Daniel Q Sun

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cochlear implants international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas S AndresenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Cochlear Implant Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9753-0512
Lekha V YesantharaoJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Stephen P BowditchDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Cochlear Implant Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Deepa J GalaiyaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Cochlear Implant Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Charles C Della SantinaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Cochlear Implant Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Francis X CreightonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Cochlear Implant Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Daniel Q SunDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Cochlear Implant Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING IN OTOLARYNGOLOGYT32DC000027 · NIDCD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CAREY, JOHN PATRICK · 1989 to 2023
$5.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCochlear implant reimplantation (CIR) for external processor upgrade or device failure is becoming increasingly common as the population of cochlear implant recipients ages. Patients with Advanced Bionics (AB) Clarion 1.2 cochlear implants may undergo CIR for device age/failure or desired technology upgrade so that they may use newer external processors that have improved connectivity features. The objective of this study was to evaluate audiologic outcomes for patients who were initially implanted with an AB Clarion 1.2 internal device and underwent CIR for technology upgrade or device failure.

methodsRetrospective chart review was performed at a single academic medical center for patients (pediatric and adult) with an AB Clarion 1.2 internal device who underwent CIR to a later generation AB internal device and had available audiologic data.

resultsForty-eight individuals with a Clarion 1.2 implant underwent CIR. Pre- and post-CIR speech understanding did not change for AzBio (p-value = 0.11, mean change = 12.1%, 95% CI = -2.9-27.2%), CNCw (p-value = 0.74, mean change = -1%, 95% CI = -10.4-12.4%), or HINT (p-value = 0.12, mean change = 19.9%, 95% CI = -2.6-42.4%) scores. Pure-tone averages improved following CIR (p-value < 0.01, mean change = 4.3 dB, 95% CI = 1.5-7.1 dB).

conclusionsRevision of AB Clarion 1.2 cochlear implants does not significantly worsen audiologic outcomes and may improve hearing in some individuals, but individual patient-level outcomes are variable.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAdultBionicsChildHumansReoperationRetrospective StudiesClarion 1.2Cochlear implantationCochlear implant revisionTechnology upgrade

Identifiers

PMID37095648
PMCPMC10524760
OpenAlexW4366989470

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.