ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Hearing Preservation Rates After Cochlear Implantation Using Soft Surgery Techniques.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hearing Preservation Rates After Cochlear Implantation Using Soft Surgery Techniques.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if hearing preservation rates after cochlear implantation varied over time with soft surgery techniques.
methodsThe hearing preservation rate over time in adult cochlear implant patients over 10 years was analyzed. The association between hearing preservation rate and sex, age, perioperative steroid dose, and type of electrode was analyzed. Low frequency hearing preservation was analyzed separately.
resultsThere was no statistical difference with sex, age, or type of electrode. There was a statistically significant improvement in hearing preservation with a higher dose of perioperative steroid on univariate analysis (36.4% vs. 15%). There was a small but significant correlation (r = 0.22) between improved rate and later year of implantation. However, no statistically significant correlation was identified for any factor on multivariate analysis. Date of surgery and steroid dose were correlated and, when the correlation was modeled, there was still no correlation with hearing preservation. For low frequency hearing preservation, a higher dose of perioperative steroids and time were also found to be significant on univariate analysis (33% vs. 14.8%). Multivariate analysis did not show significance for any factor, but the date of surgery and steroid dose were noted to be correlated. Model based on the correlation showed that date of surgery and steroid dose were significantly correlated with hearing preservation (r = 0.21).
conclusionsThere was a small but significant correlation between the hearing preservation rate over time with the use of soft surgery techniques including a significant difference with the use of a higher steroid dose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.