Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40210225›Full record

ArticleOtology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology2025

Sensitivity and Specificity of Intraoperative TransImpedance Matrix Recordings Compared With X-ray Imaging in Detecting Perimodiolar Cochlear Implant Tip Foldovers: A Multicenter Study.

Alexandra M Arambula, Robin Piper, Gail Murray, Sarah E Mowry, Alejandro Rivas, Maroun Semaan, Nauman F Manzoor, Daniel E Killeen, David C Kelsall, J Eric Lupo and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Incidence of Trans-Impedance Matrix Pattern Variants in Patients With Normal Anatomy Receiving Cochlear Implantation.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

18 authors.

Alexandra M ArambulaORCID 0000-0002-5624-3613
Robin Piper
Gail Murray
Sarah E Mowry
Alejandro Rivas
Maroun Semaan
Nauman F ManzoorDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Daniel E Killeen
David C KelsallRocky Mountain Ear Center, Englewood, Colorado.
J Eric LupoRocky Mountain Ear Center, Englewood, Colorado.
Allison BieverRocky Mountain Ear Center, Englewood, Colorado.
Katrina R StidhamWestchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York.
Regina AlbinusWestchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York.
Samantha MorganWestchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York.
Brian J Kaplan
Regina PresleyGreater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sarah MenendezGreater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Viral D Tejani

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCharacterize the sensitivity and specificity of TransImpedance Matrix (TIM) recordings compared with x-rays in detecting cochlear implant tip foldovers. STUDY

designRetrospective.

settingMulti-institutional, academic and private surgery centers. PATIENTS: Patients 6 months and older undergoing cochlear implantation.

interventionsAfter cochlear implant array insertion, intraoperative TIM recordings and x-rays were conducted to confirm appropriate placement. If a foldover was identified, repeat insertion, followed by TIM and x-ray, was performed.

main outcome measuresPresence of tip foldovers as determined by TIM recordings and x-rays.

resultsThere were 13 tip foldovers out of 484 insertions, yielding a 2.7% tip foldover rate. Using x-rays as the "gold standard," TIM recordings showed 100% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity, 84.6% positive predictive value (PPV), and 100% negative predicative value in detecting tip foldovers. The x-ray images for two TIM-identified tip foldovers were interpreted as normal intraoperatively (apparent false positives), but then were interpreted as foldovers when presented to the operating surgeon postoperatively in a blinded fashion. If these false positives had been reclassified as true positives, TIM specificity and PPV would both improve to 100%.

conclusionsThese results provide further support regarding the utility of TIM recordings to evaluate appropriate cochlear implant electrode array position. Despite the low tip foldover rate reported across the literature and within this study, this multicenter patient group provided a large sample size to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of TIM recordings in identifying tip foldovers. Compared with the reference-standard, x-ray imaging, TIM recordings show equivalent, and in some cases superior, performance in identification of tip foldovers. Thus, use of TIM can potentially preclude the need for routine intraoperative x-rays without compromising patient care.

Indexed as

CochleaCochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedRadiographyRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityCochlear implantElectrophysiologyTip foldoverTransImpedance Matrix

Identifiers

PMID40210225
PMCPMC12244962

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.