Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37288065›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023

Cochlear implant electrode impedance subcomponents as biomarker for residual hearing.

Stephan Schraivogel, Philipp Aebischer, Stefan Weder, Marco Caversaccio, Wilhelm Wimmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Electrode impedance in cochlear implantation: determinants, dynamics, and clinical implications.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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Stephan SchraivogelHearing Research Laboratory, ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Philipp AebischerHearing Research Laboratory, ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefan WederDepartment of ENT-Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marco CaversaccioHearing Research Laboratory, ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Wilhelm WimmerDepartment of ENT-Head and Neck Surgery, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: Maintaining the structural integrity of the cochlea and preserving residual hearing is crucial for patients, especially for those for whom electric acoustic stimulation is intended. Impedances could reflect trauma due to electrode array insertion and therefore could serve as a biomarker for residual hearing. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between residual hearing and estimated impedance subcomponents in a known collective from an exploratory study. Methods: A total of 42 patients with lateral wall electrode arrays from the same manufacturer were included in the study. For each patient, we used data from audiological measurements to compute residual hearing, impedance telemetry recordings to estimate near and far-field impedances using an approximation model, and computed tomography scans to extract anatomical information about the cochlea. We assessed the association between residual hearing and impedance subcomponent data using linear mixed-effects models. Results: The progression of impedance subcomponents showed that far-field impedance was stable over time compared to near-field impedance. Low-frequency residual hearing demonstrated the progressive nature of hearing loss, with 48% of patients showing full or partial hearing preservation after 6 months of follow-up. Analysis revealed a statistically significant negative effect of near-field impedance on residual hearing (-3.81 dB HL per kΩ; Conclusion: Our findings suggest that near-field impedance offers higher specificity for residual hearing monitoring, while far-field impedance was not significantly associated with residual hearing. These results highlight the potential of impedance subcomponents as objective biomarkers for outcome monitoring in cochlear implantation.

Indexed as

cochlear traumaelectrode-tissue interfacefollow-uphearing preservation monitoringobjective measure

Identifiers

PMID37288065
PMCPMC10242064

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.