Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516541›Full record

ArticleOtology & neurotology open2023

Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion Depth on Speech Perception Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Tabita M Breitsprecher, Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner, Kevin Brown, Stefan Dazert, Una Doyle, Anandhan Dhanasingh, Wilma Großmann, Rudolf Hagen, Paul Van de Heyning, Robert Mlynski and 10 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Otology & neurotology open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Determining ideal electrode insertion depth in paediatric cochlear implantation.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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Anatomy-Based Fitting in Cochlear Implants: Potential for Optimizing Postoperative Outcomes: A Pilot Study.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cochlear size variation among the Argentinian population.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
    Article
  15. 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

20 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.

Tabita M BreitsprecherDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Wolf-Dieter BaumgartnerUniversitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenkrankheiten, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Austria.
Kevin BrownDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Stefan DazertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Una DoyleMED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete Gesellschaft m.b.H., Innsbruck, Austria.
Anandhan DhanasinghMED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete Gesellschaft m.b.H., Innsbruck, Austria.
Wilma GroßmannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, "Otto Körner," Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Rudolf HagenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, Comprehensive Hearing Center, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Paul Van de HeyningDepartment of Translational Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Robert MlynskiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, "Otto Körner," Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Marcus NeudertDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Technische Universität Dresden (oder TU Dresden), Faculty of Medicine (and University Hospital) Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Gunesh RajanOtolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Kristen RakDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery, Comprehensive Hearing Center, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Vincent Van RompaeyDepartment of Translational Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Joachim SchmutzhardDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Stefan VolkensteinDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Johannes Wesling Klinikum Minden, Bochum, Germany.
Christiane VölterDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Wilhelm WimmerDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany.
Mario ZernottiDivision of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Sanatorio Allende, Catholic University of Córdoba and National University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Nora M WeissDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, St. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
University of Antwerp · BERuhr University Bochum · DEUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Rostock · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DEAntwerp University Hospital · BEInnsbruck Medical University · ATKlinikum rechts der Isar · DEMED-EL (Austria) · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATSt. Elisabeth-Hospital Bochum · DETU Dresden · DEUniversidad Nacional de Córdoba · ARUniversity of Lucerne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The suitable electrode array choice is broadly discussed in cochlear implantation surgery. Whether to use a shorter electrode length under the aim of structure preservation versus choosing a longer array to achieve a greater cochlear coverage is a matter of debate. The aim of this review is to identify the impact of the insertion depth of a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array on CI users' speech perception outcomes. Databases Reviewed: PubMed was searched for English-language articles that were published in a peer-reviewed journal from 1997 to 2022. Methods: A systematic electronic search of the literature was carried out using PubMed to find relevant literature on the impact of insertion depth on speech perception. The review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines of reporting. Studies in both, children and adults with pre- or postlingual hearing loss, implanted with a CI were included in this study. Articles written in languages other than English, literature reviews, meta-analyses, animal studies, histopathological studies, or studies pertaining exclusively to imaging modalities without reporting correlations between insertion depth and speech outcomes were excluded. The risk of bias was determined using the "Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions" tool. Articles were extracted by 2 authors independently using predefined search terms. The titles and abstracts were screened manually to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria. The extracted information included: the study population, type of hearing loss, outcomes reported, devices used, speech perception outcomes, insertion depth (linear insertion depth and/or the angular insertion depth), and correlation between insertion depth and the speech perception outcomes. Results: A total of 215 relevant studies were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed further. Seven studies found no significant correlation between insertion depth and speech perception outcomes. Fifteen found either a significant positive correlation or a positive effect between insertion depth and speech perception. Only 1 study found a significant negative correlation between insertion depth and speech perception outcomes. Conclusion: Although most studies reported a positive effect of insertion depth on speech perception outcomes, one-third of the identified studies reported no correlation. Thus, the insertion depth must be considered as a contributing factor to speech perception rather than as a major decisive criterion. Registration: This review has been registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021257547), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Indexed as

Angular insertion depthElectrode insertion depthInsertion angleSpeech perception

Identifiers

PMID38516541
PMCPMC10950166
OpenAlexW4389781812

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.