Systematic Review of Postcochlear Implant Electrode Migration: What Is Known?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electrode migration after cochlear implantation (CI) is a rare complication that accounts for 1to 15% of all revision surgery. This study is a systematic review of the literature for investigating the knowledge and approaches to the incidence of electrode migration after CI. METHODS: A systematic electronic search of the literature was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, Virtual Health Library, Scopus and Web of Science (ISI). All original articles that reported electrode migration after CI surgery were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and CARE checklist were utilized for the assessment of the risk of bias. Descriptive data analysis was performed using SPSS software. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies including 4,316 patients were included. Out of them, 289 patients had electrode migration following CI. To diagnose electrode migration, traditional computed tomography scan was used in 13 studies, while cone-beam computed tomography was applied in three studies. In addition, electrode migration was detected during intraoperative exploration in eight studies. The most common presenting symptom was change in sound/poor performance (n = 43) followed by pain sensation (n = 15) and facial nerve stimulation (n = 10). Cholesteatoma was the most common associated pathology (n = 10) followed by infection (n = 9) and ossification of the basal turn of the cochlea (n = 8). CONCLUSION: Electrode migration is a major complication of CI and could be more common than previously thought. As it may occur with or without clinical complaints, long-term follow-up through routine radiological scanning is recommended. Further studies are warranted to identify the underlying mechanism of electrode extrusion and the appropriate fixation method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".