ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2024
Comparison of Conventional Technique with Suture Fixation and Subperiosteal Tight Pocket Technique on Revision Cochlear Implantation Rate.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several fixation methods have been described to secure the cochlear implant's receiver/stimulator, but the optimal stabilization technique is still being debated. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional technique with suture fixation to the subperiosteal tight pocket technique in terms of revision cochlear implantation rate. A retrospective review was conducted on the medical records of 649 patients who underwent cochlear implantation. The study participants were divided into different groups regarding the applied surgery technique. The relationship between the fixation technique, revision rates, and the cause of revisions related to techniques was investigated. The overall revision rate was 2.9% (19 out of 649). There were 14 (3.5%) and 5 (2%) revision implantations in the subperiosteal tight pocket and conventional technique groups, respectively. The incidence of device failure was 2.5%, and it constituted the primary cause for revision surgery in both groups. Even though patients who had the subperiosteal tight pocket technique had a much higher rate of device failure, the results indicate that there was no significant difference between the groups, as evidenced by a P-value of .12. The conventional and subperiosteal tight pocket techniques can both be safely preferred with low revision rates in patients undergoing cochlear implantation.
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.