SynthesisEuropean 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
A systematic review of electrode array scalar dislocation after cochlear implant surgery.
Synthesis 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this systematic review was to determine the rates of scalar dislocation (SD) after cochlear implant surgery with two types of electrode arrays (lateral wall, LW, and pre-formed, PF) from three manufacturers.
methodsLiterature databases were systematically searched for relevant articles covering three time periods between August 2014 and December 2023. Retrieved articles were evaluated for inclusion in further analysis. We performed a quantitative synthesis to estimate the overall rates of SD with each array type and manufacturer, and to test if these differences were significant.
results66 publications covering 4,729 implantations were used for the systematic review. These implantations included 1,782 LW arrays and 2,737 PF arrays. The breakdown according to manufacturer was 903 arrays from MED-EL, 2,527 from Manufacturer A, 850 from Manufacturer B, and 449 where the manufacturer was unspecified. SD occurred in 923 cases overall (19.5%). The SD rates by array type were 8.1% for LW arrays and 25.0% for PF arrays. The SD rates by manufacturer were 6.4% for MED-EL arrays, 23.2% for Manufacturer A arrays, and 21.3% for Manufacturer B arrays. The SD rate was significantly lower for MED-EL LW arrays compared to Manufacturer A LW arrays (p = 0.001). Within manufacturers, the SD rate was significantly lower for LW arrays compared to PF arrays for both Manufacturer A and Manufacturer B devices (both p < 0.001).
conclusionRates of SD vary by array type and manufacturer. LW arrays had the lowest rate. By manufacturer, MED-EL arrays had the lowest rate.
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.