ReviewInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Comparison of the Outcomes of Lateral Wall, Perimodiolar, and Midscala Electrodes in Cochlear Implantation Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in International 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
Introduction: Cochlear implant (CI) is the standard of care for most cases of severe-to-profound hearing loss. Different electrodes are available for CI. Objective: To compare the lateral wall, midscala, and perimodiolar electrodes in CI surgery in terms of trauma to the cochlea and hearing preservation (if there is residual hearing). Data Synthesis: We performed a comprehensive search on the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases in June 2022 for articles in the literature published until this year. We included studies published in English, involving human subjects, and regarding the types of electrodes in CI surgery, and we excluded laboratory and opinion studies. The current review followed the guidelines of the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We found 21 studies; the hearing preservation rates with each electrode were as follows: lateral wall electrode - 53%; perimodiolar electrode - 35%; and midscala electrode - 58%. The lateral wall and midscala electrodes presented better preservation of residual hearing than the perimodiolar electrode. The rates of cochlear trauma with each electrode were as follows: lateral wall electrode - 61%; perimodiolar electrode - 29%; and midscala electrode - 16%. Conclusion: The rates of preservation of functional residual hearing in CI are higher in lateral wall and midscala electrodes than in perimodiolar electrodes.
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.