ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
The Role of Cochlear Anatomy in Hearing Preservation After Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Systematic Review.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
Objective: To evaluate the association between cochlear anatomical parameters and postoperative hearing preservation (HP) following cochlear implantation in adults with preoperative residual hearing (RH). Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420250630915). Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2026. Eligible studies included adults (≥ 18 years) with preoperative RH undergoing cochlear implantation, assessed cochlear anatomy using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, reported HP within 6 months postoperatively, and examined the relationship between cochlear anatomy parameter(s) and HP. Risk of bias was evaluated using the QUIPS tool. Data were synthesized narratively; where possible, a meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Ten studies (487 implants) were included. Risk of bias was highest for study participation and confounding. Longer cochlear duct length and larger cochlear volume were suggested to be associated with better HP, though findings were inconsistent. Six studies examined angular insertion depth; four were pooled. Meta-analysis indicated a small positive correlation (pooled Conclusion: Cochlear anatomy may influence hearing preservation following cochlear implantation, with longer cochlear duct length and larger cochlear volume showing the most consistent associations with favorable outcomes. However, the certainty of evidence was very low, precluding firm conclusions regarding the predictive value of anatomical factors. 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.