ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2026
Effects of Asymmetric Auditory Deprivation in Sequential Cochlear Implant.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the influence of auditory deprivation on sequential cochlear implants in postlingual patients, comparing the ear with shorter deprivation (ESAD), longer deprivation (ELAD), and the bilateral condition (BIL). STUDY
designRetrospective study.
settingA tertiary referral center.
methodsPostlingually deafened patients who underwent sequential bilateral implantation between 1990 and 2021. Auditory performance was assessed over 24 months after activation of each implant. Outcomes included free-field pure-tone average (PTA), speech detection threshold (SDT), and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise at +10 dB SNR. Secondary variables were interimplant interval, duration of preimplant hearing aid use, etiology, and electrode insertion depth.
resultsESAD outperformed ELAD in quiet (73% [IQR 44-92] vs 37% [IQR 0-87]) and in noise (27% [IQR 0-62] vs 0% [IQR 0-45]) at 24 months (P < .001). BIL achieved superior results to both monaural conditions in quiet (97% [IQR 72.5-100], P < .001) and in noise (57% [IQR 23-86.5], P = .008), regardless of ESAD experience. Interimplant interval correlated positively with BIL performance (r = 0.450; P < .001). Longer hearing aid use was negatively associated with ESAD (r = -0.293; P = .020) and BIL performance (r = -0.312; P = .018). Partial electrode insertion in ELAD was linked to poorer BIL outcomes in quiet (P = .045). No correlations were found for age or etiology.
conclusionShorter auditory deprivation and interimplant intervals are associated with better outcomes. Bilateral stimulation enhances performance even with long deprivation in 1 ear, and auditory experience with the first implant improves results. Complete insertion favors the more deprived ear, whereas prolonged ineffective hearing aid use may compromise outcomes.
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.