Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40223012›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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

Optimization of surgical interventions in auditory rehabilitation for chronic otitis media: comparative between passive middle ear implants, bone conduction implants, and active middle ear systems.

Joan Lorente-Piera, Raquel Manrique-Huarte, Sebastián Picciafuoco, Janaina P Lima, Diego Calavia, Valeria Serra, Manuel Manrique

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Joan Lorente-PieraClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. joanlopi5@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9676-7879
Raquel Manrique-HuarteClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Sebastián PicciafuocoClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Janaina P LimaClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Diego CalaviaClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Valeria SerraClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Manuel ManriqueClinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn otology consultations, patients with chronic otitis media (COM) often present as candidates for various hearing rehabilitation options. Selecting the most suitable approach requires careful consideration of patient preferences and expectations, the risk of disease progression, and the integrity of the bone conduction pathway. This study aims to evaluate and compare postoperative hearing outcomes in COM patients undergoing tympanoplasty (with or without passive middle ear implants), bone conduction systems (BCI), or active middle ear implants (AMEI). The objective is to assess the effectiveness of each surgical approach in hearing rehabilitation, considering the type and severity of hearing loss as well as the duration of the disease.

methodsRetrospective data analysis in a tertiary referral center studying average PTA across six different frequencies, speech perception at 65 dB, influence of Eustachian tube dysfunction, reintervention rate and adverse effects, and the influence of disease duration on functional outcomes via linear regression analysis.

results116 patients underwent surgery due to COM between 1998 and 2024. With a slight female predominance (54.31%). AMEIs and bone conduction devices provided the highest amplification in terms of PTA and speech discrimination, with a lower reintervention rate when comparing both groups with passive middle ear implants, OR in BCI group of 0.30 (0.10; 0.89, p = 0.030), OR in VSB group of 0.15 (0.04; 0.56, p = 0.005). It was also observed that a longer evolution time could be associated with greater auditory gain, with a p-value = 0.033.

conclusionsThe selection of each treatment option primarily depends on bone conduction thresholds, along with surgical risk, patient preferences, and MRI compatibility. In our study, AMEIs demonstrated the highest functional gain in terms of speech discrimination and frequency-specific amplification, followed by BCI. These findings support the use of implantable hearing solutions as effective alternatives for auditory rehabilitation in COM patients.

Indexed as

Bone ConductionOssicular ProsthesisOtitis MediaTympanoplastyAdolescentAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHearing AidsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpeech PerceptionTreatment OutcomeActive middle ear implantsBone conduction implantsChronic media otitisHearing lossTympanoplasty

Identifiers

PMID40223012

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.