ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
The influence of CI electrode array design on the preservation of residual hearing.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Slim Straight and Slim Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays for Cochlear Implantation: Hearing Results and Risks-A Systematic Review (2015-2025).Audiology research · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluation of tip fold over in 1,575 cochlear implant electrode arrays.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Article
- Investigation of distributive, morphological and audiological factors influencing the long-term aggravation of tinnitus following cochlear implant provision.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
- Cochlear Implants: An Overview.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To individualize cochlear implant (CI) surgery regarding cochlear morphology, different electrode arrays have been developed. The study aims to investigate the influence of the electrode array design on the preservation of residual hearing, considering long-term results. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 923 patients implanted with straight or perimodiolar electrode arrays from Cochlear™ and MED-EL between 2003 and 2021. The standard pure tone average (PTA4) and low-frequency PTA (PTAlow) were measured before and after surgery, with a follow-up period of 3.2 years up to 15.7 years. Results: In patients with measurable preoperative PTA4 (data of four frequencies), the slim straight electrode array (SSA) was chosen significantly more often preoperatively within the Cochlear™ portfolio (CA vs. SSA Conclusion: Preoperative residual hearing influences the choice of electrode array within the manufacturer's portfolio, with short electrode arrays showing superior results in the preservation of residual hearing. Over time, straight and short electrode arrays are associated with improved preservation of residual hearing. Therefore, for patients with existing relevant residual hearing, it is advisable to choose short and atraumatic lateral wall electrode arrays.
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.