Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38294508›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

Comparison of depth of electrode insertion between cochleostomy and round window approach: a cadaveric study.

Anupriya Jangra, K Nidhin Das, Vidhu Sharma, Sailaja Timmaraju, Pushpinder Khera, Sarbesh Tiwari, Kapil Soni, Bikram Choudhury, Surajit Ghatak, Shilpi Gupta Dixit and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Anupriya JangraDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
K Nidhin DasDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Vidhu SharmaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Sailaja TimmarajuEducation and Training, MED-EL India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India.
Pushpinder KheraDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional, Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Sarbesh TiwariDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional, Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Kapil SoniDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Bikram ChoudhuryDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Surajit GhatakDepartment of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Shilpi Gupta DixitDepartment of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Ashish Kumar NayyarDepartment of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Amit GoyalDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India. meetugoyal@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4339-7541

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRound window approach and cochleostomy approach can have different depth of electrode insertion during cochlear implantation which itself can alter the audiological outcomes in cochlear implant.

objectiveThe current study was conducted to determine the difference in the depth of electrode insertion via cochleostomy and round widow approach when done serially in same temporal bone. METHODOLOGY: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology in conjunction with Department of Anatomy and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology over a period of 1 year. 12-electrode array insertion was performed via either approach (cochleostomy or round window) in the cadaveric temporal bone. HRCT temporal bone scan of the implanted temporal bone was done and depth of insertion and various cochlear parameters were calculated.

resultA total of 12 temporal bones were included for imaging analysis. The mean cochlear duct length was 32.892 mm; the alpha and beta angles were 58.175° and 8.350°, respectively. The mean angular depth of electrode insertion via round window was found to be 325.2° (SD = 150.5842) and via cochleostomy 327.350 (SD = 112.79) degree and the mean linear depth of electrode insertion via round window was found to be 18.80 (SD = 4.4962) mm via cochleostomy 19.650 (SD = 3.8087) mm, which was calculated using OTOPLAN 1.5.0 software. There was a statically significant difference in linear depth of insertion between round window and cochleostomy. Although the angular depth of insertion was higher in CS group, there was no statistically significant difference with round window type of insertion.

conclusionThe depth of electrode insertion is one of the parameters that influences the hearing outcome. Linear depth of electrode insertion was found to be more in case of cochleostomy compared to round window approach (p = 0.075) and difference in case of angular depth of electrode insertion existed but not significant (p = 0.529).

Indexed as

CadaverCochleaCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsRound Window, EarTemporal BoneCross-Sectional StudiesElectrodes, ImplantedHumansTomography, X-Ray ComputedCochlear implantsCochleostomyDepth of insertion of electrodeRound window insertion

Identifiers

PMID38294508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.