Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775389›Full record

ReviewEuropean 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 Surgery2026

The effect of surgical complexity on hearing preservation during cochlear implantation with sheathed perimodiolar electrodes.

Ralf Greisiger, Stephen O'Leary, Christofer Bester, Hilde Korslund, Muneera Iftikhar, Greg Eigner Jablonski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Ralf GreisigerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Sognsvannsveien 20, Oslo, NO-0464, Norway. rgreisig@ous-hf.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2372-8160
Stephen O'LearyDepartment of Surgery-Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Christofer BesterDepartment of Surgery-Otolaryngology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Hilde KorslundIntervention Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Muneera IftikharDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Sognsvannsveien 20, Oslo, NO-0464, Norway.
Greg Eigner JablonskiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Sognsvannsveien 20, Oslo, NO-0464, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe causes of residual hearing loss during cochlear implantation are generally poorly understood. This study sought to understand whether the complexity of this surgical approach related to a loss of residual hearing.

methodThirty-four adults underwent implantation with a sheathed perimodiolar electrode, via an extended round window approach. During implantation, there was simultaneous video fluoroscopy, electrocochleography (ECochG) and video from the operating microscope. Three investigators reviewed the data simultaneously. Surgery was classified as straightforward or complex, defined as difficulty with either introduction of the electrode/sheath, advancement of the electrode, or withdrawal of the sheath. ECochG signal amplitude was correlated to intracochlear electrode movements, as determined by video fluoroscopy. The primary outcome was relative hearing loss, at least six weeks after surgery. The impact of surgical complexity on relative hearing loss was assessed. A secondary outcome was the impact of surgical complexity or electrode movement on ECochG signal amplitude.

resultsComplex surgery was associated with significantly worse relative hearing preservation (p=0.011), as well as lower maximum ECochG amplitudes (Kruskal-Wallis, chi2 = 4.35, p= 0.037). After the electrode had been advanced out of the sheath, sudden fluctuations in ECochG amplitude were related to sudden changes in insertion depth. In non-complex surgeries, the residual hearing was independent of such fluctuations (Kruskal-Wallis, chi2=1.12,p=0.289).

conclusionThese data suggest residual hearing is lost early during the implant procedure, following complex surgical events. The low ECochG amplitudes encountered in complex surgeries support this interpretation. ECochG amplitude fluctuations were not associated with poorer residual hearing.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsElectrodes, ImplantedHearing LossAdultAgedAudiometry, Evoked ResponseFemaleFluoroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRound Window, EarTreatment OutcomeCochlear implantsCT-scanElectrocochleographyFluoroscopyMonitoringPreserve residual hearingTrauma

Identifiers

PMID40775389
PMCPMC12904896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.