ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Clinical Outcomes Following Revision Cochlear Implantation: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 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
Objective: Cochlear implant surgery enables individuals with severe hearing loss to regain auditory function. With the increasing number of implant recipients, complications have become more common, leading to a greater need for revision procedures. This study aimed to analyze and assess the underlying causes of revision surgeries performed in our clinic. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 1,800 patients who underwent cochlear implantation in our clinic. Of these, 118 patients who required revision operations were included in the analysis. Causes of revision, observed complications, and demographic profiles of the patients were studied. Results: No significant differences were found in age, gender, implantation side, presence of inner ear anomalies, or etiology between patients with and without complications (p>0.05). Complications were observed in 22.9% of female patients (n=11) and 8.6% of male patients (n=6). The cochlear implant brand, failure type (soft or hard), and revision indication were not statistically related to complication status (p>0.05). Although not significant, complication rates were higher among patients who required revision due to device malfunction or cholesteatoma. Conclusion: Revision cochlear implantation should be considered in patients presenting with symptoms such as hearing deterioration, tinnitus, pain or swelling at the implant site, redness, delayed wound healing, or atypical facial sensations. This study summarizes our clinical experience and highlights the primary causes leading to revision cochlear implantation.
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.