Table 2.
26 studies reported on electrode scalar deviation.
| Study | No. of cases taken for analysis | Analyzing method | No. of electrode from type/brand |
No. of cases reported with scalar deviation |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | MH | MS | LW | ||||
| Shaul et al. (2018) | 110 | Imaging | CA (92), SM (18) | – | – | 18 (19.5%) | – | – | |
| Sipari et al. (2018) | 23 | Imaging | – | MS (23) | – | – | 5 (22%) | – | |
| Koka et al. (2018) | 32 | Imaging/EcochG | – | MS (32) | – | – | 7 (22%) | – | |
| Jia et al. (2018) | 65 | Imaging | CA (12), SM(1), SS (31) | 1J (2), MS (3) | F28 (16), | 1 (8%) | 1 (20%) | – | |
| McJunkin et al. (2018) | 23 | Imaging | SM (23) | – | – | 6 (26%) | – | – | |
| Ketterer et al., 2017 | 368 | Imaging | CA (368) | – | – | 118 (32%) | – | – | |
| An et al., 2017 | 26 | Imaging | SS (5) | – | F28 (21) | – | – | 1 (4.7%) F28, 1(20%) SS |
|
| Aschendorff et al. (2017) | 45 | Imaging | SM (45) | – | – | 0 (0%) | – | – | |
| O'Connell et al., 2017a | 48 | Imaging | – | – | F24, F28, Std (48) | – | – | 0 (0%) | |
| O'Connell et al., 2017b | 18 | EcochG | – | MS (18) | – | – | 6(33%) | – | |
| Mittmann et al. (2017) | 50 | NRT | SS (50) | – | – | – | – | 2 (4%) SS | |
| Lathuillière et al., 2017 | 24 | Imaging | CA (24), | – | – | 3 (13%) | – | – | |
| O'Connell et al., 2016a | 56 | Imaging | CA (36), SS (20) | – | – | 19 (52%) | – | 2 (10%) SS | |
| O'Connell et al., 2016b | 220 | Imaging | CA (115), SS (19), | 1J(21), MS (14) | F28 (28), Std (17), F24 (4) & M (2) | 59 (51%) | 8(57%) | 4 (4.4%) F | |
| Wanna et al. (2015) (Wanna et al., 2015) | 45 | Imaging | CA (15) | MS (3) | 4 (26%) | 1(33%) | 2 (7%)- 1J &SS | ||
| SS, 1J & F collectively (27) | |||||||||
| Nordfalk et al. (2016) (Nordfalk et al., 2016) | 39 | Imaging | – | – | F28 (18), FL (17), F24 (4) | – | – | 0 (0%) F | |
| Mittmann et al., 2015a | 23 | NRT | CA (23) | – | – | 6 (26%) | – | – | |
| Mittmann et al., 2015b | 85 | NRT | CA (85) | – | – | 16 (18%) | – | – | |
| Boyer et al. (2015) | 61 | Imaging | CA (31), | – | FL, F28, F24, Std (30) | 8 (25%) | – | 0 (0%) FLEX, 1 (3%) Std. |
|
| Fischer et al., 2015 | 63 | Imaging | – | – | F28 (40), F24 (2), FL (7), Std (14) | – | – | 5 (12.5%) F28 | |
| Wanna et al. (2014) | 116 | Imaging | CA, MS (69) | (47) LW from all 3 CI brands | 29 (42%) with MH | – | 5 (10.6%) All LW | ||
| Dirr et al. (2013) | 215 | imaging | 107 | 108 | – | – | 1(0.92%) F | ||
| Nordfalk et al. (2014) | 13 | Imaging | CA (7) | 1J (3) | Std (2), F24 (1) | 3 (43%) with CA, | – | 1 (50%) Std, 1 (33%) 1J |
|
| Aschendorff et al. (2011) | 223 | Imaging | C (21), CA (202) | – | – | 19 (90%) C, 70 (35%) CA. | – | – | |
| Wanna et al. (2011) | 32 | Imaging | 20 | 10 | 2 | 7 (35%) | 4(40%) | 0 (0%) F | |
| Lane et al. (2007) | 23 | Imaging | C/CA (13) | H (1) | – | 6 (46%) C | – | 7 (78%) LW | |
| LW electrodes from brand A & B (9) | |||||||||
| Total | 2046 | 1415 | 272 | 359 | 392 | 32 | 34 | ||
| Total, after excluding Dirr et al that did not specify number per electrode type | 1831 |
Pre-curved (1324) Lateral wall (507) |
Pre-curved (424) Lateral wall (34) |
||||||
NRT: neural response telemetry, EcochG: electrocochleography.