Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39580555›Full record

SynthesisEuropean 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 Surgery2025

Scala vestibuli cochlear implantation: exploring feasibility and outcomes- a systematic review.

Nidhin Das K, Vidhu Sharma, Vishudh Mohan, Kapil Soni, Amit Goyal

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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, 2025. 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. 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

5 authors.

Nidhin Das KNeuro-Otology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Vidhu SharmaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Vishudh MohanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
Kapil SoniDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, 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

purposeWhile the scala tympani (ST) is usually the preferred site for electrode insertion in cochlear implantation, anatomical variations and cochlear ossification may require scala vestibuli (SV) insertion. This systematic review evaluates the feasibility, techniques, and clinical outcomes of SV insertions compared to ST insertions, focusing on their impact on auditory performance.

methodsA systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Studies on SV cochlear implantation were identified from databases like PubMed and EMBASE. The review included research articles reporting on anatomical feasibility, surgical methods, postoperative outcomes, and complications. Data extraction focused on demographic details, electrode types, insertion depths, and clinical outcomes of SV insertions. A two-stage selection process was applied, and 17 studies with 72 cases were included.

resultsThe review covered 72 cases of SV insertions, with patients aged 18 months to 65 years. Bacterial meningitis was the leading cause of hearing loss (28%). Various electrode types were used, with insertion depths ranging from 12 to 31 mm. Approximately 75% of patients showed improved auditory performance. Complications, including vertigo and tinnitus, were reported in 10% of cases, with no significant difference between SV and ST insertions.

conclusionSV cochlear implantation is a feasible and effective alternative in cases where ST is inaccessible. Auditory outcomes are comparable to ST insertions, and the technique shows promise in challenging anatomical situations such as cochlear ossification. Further studies are required to optimize surgical approaches and confirm long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHearing LossScala TympaniFeasibility StudiesHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeCochlear implantsDrill out procedureElectrode insertionOssified cochleaScala vestibuli

Identifiers

PMID39580555

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.