ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2025
Estimation of Angular Insertion Depth of a Cochlear Implant Electrode Array: Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Versus Spiral Formulae.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biohybrid cochlear implants: neural interfaces, regenerative pathways, and translational benchmarks.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective was to determine which of the following angular insertion depth (AID) estimation methods showed the strongest correlation with the postoperative AID (AIDpostop) of a lateral wall (LW) electrode: the Escudé formula, based on the largest distance from the round window (RW) to the LW (distance A); the elliptic-circular approximation (ECA) method, based on both distance A and the perpendicular distance (distance B); and a three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction method. The secondary objective was to assess the impact of using the actual electrode insertion length on the evaluation of AID estimation methods.
methodsThis study included 45 cochleae implanted with the Advanced Bionics SlimJ electrode, with all 16 active electrode contacts positioned intracochlear. Distance A, distance B, and a 3D reconstruction along the LW were evaluated on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging using 3D Slicer. The AIDpostop and insertion length were assessed using cone-beam computed tomography. Two sets of estimated AID values were obtained: assuming a perfect 23-mm insertion length with the reference electrode at the RW (AID23mm); and using the actual insertion length (AIDinsertionlength). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to assess the association between the estimated AID values and AIDpostop.
resultsA moderately positive correlation was observed between AID23mm and AIDpostop for all three approaches, with no statistically significant differences among them (rs=0.410-0.579). When the analysis was repeated using AIDinsertionlength, the strength of the correlation with AIDpostop increased significantly for all three methods, with the 3D reconstruction method showing a stronger correlation (rs=0.952) than the Escudé formula (rs=0.734) or the ECA method (rs=0.787) (P<0.001).
conclusionThe 3D reconstruction approach has the potential to improve prediction of the AID for LW electrode arrays compared to spiral formulae based on 2D cochlear dimensions. Accurate assessment of the actual insertion length is important for the proper evaluation of AID estimation methods.
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.