ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Cochlear Implant Stimulation Parameters Play a Key Role in Reducing Facial Nerve Stimulation.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Fitting of cochlear implant systems].HNO · 2025Review
- Customized strategies for managing cochlear implant stimulation side effects.Cochlear implants international · 2025Article
- Effects of stimulus polarity on the local evoked potential in auditory brainstem implant users.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A percentage (i.e., 5.6%) of Cochlear Implant (CI) users reportedly experience unwanted facial nerve stimulation (FNS). For some, the effort to control this problem results in changing stimulation parameters, thereby reducing their hearing performance. For others, the only viable solution is to deactivate the CI completely. A growing body of evidence in the form of case reports suggests that undesired FNS can be effectively addressed through re-implantation with an Oticon Medical (OM) Neuro-Zti implant. However, the root of this benefit is still unknown: is it due to surgical adjustments, such as varied array geometries and/or positioning, or does it stem from differences in stimulation parameters and/or grounding? The OM device exhibits two distinct features: (1) unique stimulation parameters, including anodic leading pulses and loudness controlled by pulse duration-not current-resulting in lower overall current amplitudes; and (2) unconventional grounding, including both passive (capacitive) discharge, which creates a pseudo-monophasic pulse shape, and a 'distributed-all-polar' (DAP) grounding scheme, which is thought to reduce current spread. Unfortunately, case reports alone cannot distinguish between surgical factors and these implant-related ones. In this paper, we present a novel follow-up study of two CI subjects who previously experienced FNS before re-implantation with Neuro-Zti implants. We used the Oticon Medical Research Platform (OMRP) to stimulate a single electrode in each subject in two ways: (1) with traditional monopolar biphasic cathodic-first pulses, and (2) with distinct OM clinical stimulation. We progressively increased the stimulation intensity until FNS occurred or the sound became excessively loud. Non-auditory/FNS sensations were observed with the traditional stimulation but not with the OM clinical one. This provides the first direct evidence demonstrating that stimulation parameters and/or grounding-not surgical factors-play a key role in mitigating FNS.
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.