Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37466660›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2024

Comparing linear and non-linear models to estimate the appropriate cochlear implant electrode array length-are current methods precise enough?

Nora M Weiss, Tabita Breitsprecher, Martin Wozniak, David Bächinger, Christiane Völter, Robert Mlynski, Paul Van de Heyning, Vincent Van Rompaey, Stefan Dazert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impedance-based tracking of a cochlear implant electrode reliably detects successful array insertion.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
    Article
  2. Angular Insertion Depth for Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Analysis on Precision of CT, MRI, and x-Ray.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Impact of cochlear detailed morphology on insertion results and intracochlear trauma of a slim pre-curved electrode array: a micro-CT study.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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Influence of cochlear coverage on speech perception in single sided deafness, bimodal, and bilateral implanted cochlear implant patients.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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Electrically evoked compound action potentials are associated with the site of intracochlear stimulation.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
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

9 authors.

Nora M WeissDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany. nora.weiss@rub.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0645-3591
Tabita BreitsprecherDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Martin WozniakMED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Deutschland GmbH, Starnberg, Deutschland.
David BächingerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Christiane VölterDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Robert MlynskiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, "Otto Körner", University, Rostock, Germany.
Paul Van de HeyningDepartment of Translational Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Vincent Van Rompaey *Department of Translational Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Stefan Dazert *Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn cochlear implantation with flexible lateral wall electrode arrays, a cochlear coverage (CC) range between 70% and 80% is considered ideal for optimal speech perception. To achieve this CC, the cochlear implant (CI) electrode array has to be chosen according to the individual cochlear duct length (CDL). Here, we mathematically analyzed the suitability of different flexible lateral wall electrode array lengths covering between 70% and 80% of the CDL.

methodsIn a retrospective cross-sectional study preoperative high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) from patients undergoing cochlear implantation was investigated. The CDL was estimated using an otosurgical planning software and the CI electrode array lengths covering 70-80% of the CDL was calculated using (i) linear and (ii) non-linear models.

resultsThe analysis of 120 HRCT data sets showed significantly different model-dependent CDL. Significant differences between the CC of 70% assessed from linear and non-linear models (mean difference: 2.5 mm, p < 0.001) and the CC of 80% assessed from linear and non-linear models (mean difference: 1.5 mm, p < 0.001) were found. In up to 25% of the patients none of the existing flexible lateral wall electrode arrays fit into this range. In 59 cases (49,2%) the models did not agree on the suitable electrode arrays.

conclusionsThe CC varies depending on the underlying CDL approximation, which critically influences electrode array choice. Based on the literature, we hypothesize that the non-linear method systematically overestimates the CC and may lead to rather too short electrode array choices. Future studies need to assess the accuracy of the individual mathematical models.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsCochleaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNonlinear DynamicsRetrospective StudiesAngular insertion depth predictionInsertion angle

Identifiers

PMID37466660
PMCPMC10764384

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.