Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855776›Full record

ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024

Outcomes following cochlear implantation with eluting electrodes: A systematic review.

Alex Fleet, Yasmin Nikookam, Anshul Radotra, Shravan Gowrishankar, Christopher Metcalfe, Jameel Muzaffar, Matthew E Smith, Peter Monksfield, Manohar Bance

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Electrode impedance in cochlear implantation: determinants, dynamics, and clinical implications.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
    Review
  5. Angular Insertion Depth for Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Analysis on Precision of CT, MRI, and x-Ray.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Neural Hearing Loss: Mechanisms, Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  9. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Cochlear Implant Electrode Impedance in Standard and Dexamethasone-Eluting Electrode Arrays.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

9 authors.

Alex FleetDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Health Campus University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3225-4163
Yasmin NikookamDepartment of Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way Edgbaston Birmingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0796-7233
Anshul RadotraThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust New Cross Hospital Wolverhampton UK.
Shravan GowrishankarDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Health Campus University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0552-6314
Christopher MetcalfeThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust New Cross Hospital Wolverhampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8790-2722
Jameel MuzaffarDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Health Campus University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3065-0269
Matthew E SmithDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Health Campus University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8147-1549
Peter MonksfieldDepartment of Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way Edgbaston Birmingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7343-7105
Manohar BanceDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Addenbrooke's Health Campus University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8050-3617

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To establish audiological and other outcomes following cochlear implantation in humans and animals with eluting electrodes. Methods: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Databases searched (April 2023): MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science. Studies reporting outcomes in either humans or animals following cochlear implantation with a drug-eluting electrode were included. No limits were placed on language or year of publication. Risk of bias assessment was performed on all included studies using either the Brazzelli or Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) assessment tools. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Results: Searches identified 146 abstracts and 108 full texts. Of these, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes in 523 animals (17 studies) and 24 humans (1 study). Eluting electrodes included dexamethasone (16 studies), aracytine (1 study), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (1 study), the growth factors insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) (1 study), and neurotrophin-3 (1 study). All included studies compare outcomes following implantation with an eluting electrode with a control non-eluting electrode. In the majority of studies, audiological outcomes (e.g., auditory brainstem response threshold) were superior following implantation with an eluting electrode compared with a standard electrode. Most studies which investigated post-implantation impedance reported lower impedance following implantation with an eluting electrode. The influence of eluting electrodes on other reported outcomes (including post-implantation cochlear fibrosis and the survival of hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons) was more varied across the included studies. Conclusions: Eluting electrodes have shown promise in animal studies in preserving residual hearing following cochlear implantation and in reducing impedance, though data from human studies remain lacking. Further in-human studies will be required to determine the clinical usefulness of drug-eluting cochlear implants as a future treatment for sensorineural hearing loss.

Indexed as

cochlear implantationeluting electrodeshearingotology

Identifiers

PMID38855776
PMCPMC11160184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.