ArticleOTO open
Short- Versus Long-Term Hearing Preservation and Speech Recognition Outcomes in Precurved and Straight Electrode Arrays.
Article in OTO open. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Compare audiologic outcomes between precurved and straight electrode arrays in cochlear implant (CI) recipients while controlling for age and preoperative hearing in a large cohort. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Methods: Adult CI recipients who underwent surgery from 2018 to 2025 with Cochlear Americas slim modiolar CI532/632 (precurved) or slim straight CI522/622 (straight) electrode arrays were included. Preimplantation and postimplantation low-frequency pure tone average (LFPTA) in the short- (1- and 6-months) and long-term (≥12 months) and speech recognition testing (CNC, AzBio in quiet) at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months postactivation were recorded. Hearing preservation (LFPTA shift) and speech recognition scores were evaluated using multivariate linear regression analysis. Results: One hundred seventy-two patients (190 ears) were included. 124 (65.3%) and 66 (34.7%) ears were implanted with a precurved or straight electrode, respectively. 47 (24.7%) ears had residual hearing (LFPTA ≤ 80) preoperatively. Precurved electrode recipients had significantly better hearing preservation compared to straight electrode recipients in the short-term ( Conclusion: Precurved electrodes were associated with small but statistically significant greater hearing preservation in the short-term compared to straight electrodes, but this difference did not persist in the long-term. Speech recognition outcomes were similar for precurved and straight electrodes at all timepoints. These findings should be considered during preoperative decision-making for potential CI recipients.
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.