ArticleIranian journal of otorhinolaryngology2025
What Did We Learn from Our Cochlear Implant Revisions?
Article in Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to report our clinic's 11-year experience with cochlear implant (CI) revision surgeries. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study. Patients who underwent CI and revision surgery at the same tertiary institution were enrolled in the study. Patients whose primary surgery was performed at another institution were excluded from the study. The patients' clinical charts, surgical records, and audiological and oral language outcomes were retrospectively examined. Results: Thirty-three (29 children, 4 adults) of 720 patients (871 CI) at our clinic required revision surgery, representing a revision surgery rate of 4.58%. The most common reason for revision was device failure (10 patients), followed by skin and electrode problems, with electrode tip fold-over in 6 patients, a broken electrode cable in 1 patient, skin flap complications in 6 patients, displacement of the magnet in 1 patient, cholesteatoma in 1 patient, electrode migration in 6 patients, misplacement of the electrode array into the internal acoustic canal in 1 patient, and explantation of the electrode cable in the external auditory canal in 1 patient. We had only one major complication after revision surgery. Conclusion: We recommend performing routine postoperative imaging, even if intraoperative telemetries are normal, to diagnose electrode misplacement or electrode tip fold-over. Additionally, we recommend long-term regular follow-up of children, in particular, because our study showed that the number of revision surgeries was higher in children who received implants at an early age.
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.