Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40240700›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

Evaluation of medium-term cochlear implant use in patients with asymmetric hearing loss.

Isabelle Mosnier, Remy Louvel, Yann Nguyen, Renato Torres, Evelyne Ferrary, Hannah Daoudi, Ghizlène Lahlou

Abstract read
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Isabelle MosnierUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université, 50-52 Boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France. isabelle.mosnier@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0458-4827
Remy LouvelUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université, 50-52 Boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France.
Yann NguyenUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université, 50-52 Boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4635-0658
Renato TorresFondation Pour l'Audition, Institut de l'Audition, IHU reConnect, Université Paris Cité, Institut Pasteur, AP-HP, Inserm, 75012, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6701-6793
Evelyne FerraryUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université, 50-52 Boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0066-8556
Hannah DaoudiUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université, 50-52 Boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France.
Ghizlène LahlouUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université, 50-52 Boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75013, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1067-045X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCochlear implant (CI) effectiveness in asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) is well established, but CI use over time and daily usage are rarely monitored by health care systems. Continued use of the CI after the first year could be considered an indirect indicator of subjective benefit. The objective of this study was to evaluate CI use with a follow-up period of 5 years. MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty-four patients were included in this retrospective study. AHL candidates included patients with an aided speech perception score (SPS) < 50% at 60 dB in the ear to be implanted. The better ear had to have a non-fluctuating HL, and an aided SPS ≥ 60% for disyllabic words in quiet, with an interaural SPS gap ≥ 40%.

resultsNinety-seven percent of patients still used their CI all day at 1-year and 93% at 5-years post-implantation. Only four patients discontinued use. The mean duration of daily use at 5-years assessed using data-logging was 12 ± 3.2 h. Aided SPS for the implanted ear improved at 1-year post-implantation, for both mono- and disyllabic words in quiet and sentences in noise (p < 0.0001), and remained stable at 5-years. Unaided and aided SPS of the acoustic ear decreased over time. However, SPS in bimodal conditions improved at 1-year for both mono- (p < 0.0001) and disyllabic words (p < 0.005) and sentences in noise (p < 0.0005) and the scores remained stable at 5-years.

conclusionThe low percentage of non-users and the long duration of daily use at 5 years post-implantation are an additional strong argument to recommend cochlear implantation in patients with asymmetric hearing aid benefit.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsHearing Loss, UnilateralSpeech PerceptionAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCochlear implantationDaily useDiscontinued implant useSpeech performanceSubjective benefit

Identifiers

PMID40240700

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.