Cochlear implantation in patients with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cochlear implantation is a very effective therapy for deafness. However, aberrant cochlear anatomy poses technological obstacles, with varying results observed. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the varied results of cochlear implantation in abnormal cochlear anatomy. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted from January 2014 to 4 May 2024. Studies reporting outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with anomalous cochlear/vestibular anatomy were included. Primary outcomes were hearing, speech perception, and quality of life. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool. A total of 24 studies comprising 1,123 patients out of 29 included studies. Common anomalies were Mondini dysplasia (30 studies), common cavity (12 studies), and cochlear hypoplasia (8 studies). Short-term (3 years) follow-up showed no significant differences. Complication rates were higher with anomalous anatomy (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.27-2.48, and p-value = 0.001). Outcomes were better with electrode designs suitable for an anomalous cochlea. In individuals with abnormal cochlear anatomy, cochlear implantation results were poor in the short term but similar to normal cochleae in the medium-to-long term for speech perception. Careful patient selection, improved imaging, tailored electrode arrays, and surgical competence all improved results. Larger multicenter prospective trials using standardized methodologies are required.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".