Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37745650›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023

Comparison of auditory brainstem response and electrocochleography to assess the coupling efficiency of active middle ear implants.

Tom Gawliczek, Georgios Mantokoudis, Lukas Anschuetz, Marco D Caversaccio, Stefan Weder

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. It is linked to trial NCT07476079 (Optimization and Validation of Electric Acoustic Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT07476079 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Optimization and Validation of Electric Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) Mapping as a Function of Residual Hearing After CI-Implantation

TypeinterventionalSponsorLuzerner KantonsspitalRan2026 to 2027Enrolled12ConditionsFitting Methods by EAS PatientsArmsThe objective fitting method of the EAS based on the thresholds of electrocochleography is the intervention of our study., The subjective adjustment of an EAS based on thresholds from the pure tone audiogram.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Intraoperative ABR in Vibrant Soundbridge Surgery: Influence of Bone-Conduction Thresholds.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
  3. Article
  4. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tom GawliczekDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Georgios MantokoudisDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Lukas AnschuetzDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marco D CaversaccioDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefan WederDepartment of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHUniversity Hospital of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of auditory brainstem response (ABR) and extracochlear electrocochleography (ECochG) in objectively evaluating the coupling efficiency of floating mass transducer (FMT) placement during active middle ear implant (AMEI) surgery. Methods: We enrolled 15 patients (mean age 58.5 ± 19.4 years) with mixed hearing loss who underwent AMEI implantation (seven ossicular chain and eight round window couplings). Before the surgical procedure, an audiogram was performed. We utilized a clinical measurement system to stimulate and record intraoperative ABR and ECochG recordings. The coupling efficiency of the VSB was evaluated through ECochG and ABR threshold measurements. Postoperatively, we conducted an audiogram and a vibrogram. Results: In all 15 patients, ABR threshold testing successfully determined intraoperative coupling efficiency, while ECochG was successful in only eight patients. In our cohort, ABR measurements were more practical, consistent, and robust than ECochG measurements. Coupling efficiency, calculated as the difference between vibrogram thresholds and postoperative bone conduction thresholds, was found to be more accurately predicted by ABR measurements ( Conclusion: Our findings suggest that ABR measurements are more practical, robust, and consistent than ECochG measurements for determining coupling efficiency during FMT placement surgery. The use of ABR measurements can help to identify the optimal FMT placement, especially with round window coupling. Finally, we offer normative data for both techniques, which can aid other clinical centers in using intraoperative monitoring for AMEI placement.

Indexed as

active middle ear implantauditory brainstem responsecoupling efficiencyelectrocochleographyobjective measuresVibrant Soundbridge

Identifiers

PMID37745650
PMCPMC10512052
OpenAlexW4386469589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.