ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Evaluation of the Performance of OTOPLAN-Based Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Selection: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Etiology-Driven Personalized Cochlear Implantation: Implications for Electrode Choice, Timing, and Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Integrating Computational Modelling into the Ecosystem of Cochlear Implantation: Advancing Access to Diagnostics, Decision-Making, and Post-Implantation Outcomes on a Global Scale.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- When Do We Use Alternative Methods? Examination of the Factors Affecting the Use of Alternative Methods in Cochlear Implantation Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The feasibility of endoscopic stapes surgery: A three-dimensional planning method.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
- Advances in 3D Inner Ear Reconstruction Software for Cochlear Implants: A Comprehensive Review.Methods and protocols · 2024Review
- Exploring Anatomy-Based Fitting for Cochlear Implantation: A Narrative Review.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Otoplan is a surgical planning software designed to assist with cochlear implant surgery. One of its outputs is a recommendation of electrode array type based on imaging parameters. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the differences in auditory outcomes between patients who were implanted with arrays corresponding to those recommended by the Otoplan software versus those in which the array selection differed from the Otoplan recommendation. Pre-operative CT images from 114 patients were imported into the software, and array recommendations were generated. These were compared to the arrays which had actually been implanted during surgery, both in terms of array type and length. As recommended, 47% of patients received the same array, 34% received a shorter array, and 18% received a longer array. For reasons relating to structure and hearing preservation, 83% received the more flexible arrays. Those who received stiffer arrays had cochlear malformations or ossification. A negative, although non-statistically significant correlation was observed between the CNC scores at 12 months and the absolute value of the difference between recommended array and implanted array. In conclusion, clinicians may be slightly biased toward shorter electrode arrays due to their perceived greater ability to achieve full insertion. Using 3D imaging during the pre-operative planning may improve clinicians' confidence to implant longer electrode arrays, where appropriate, to achieve optimum hearing outcomes.
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.