Objectives/Hypothesis: Two types of electrode arrays for cochlear implants (CIs) are distinguished: lateral wall and perimodiolar. Scalar translocation of the array can lead to intracochlear trauma by penetrating from the scala tympani into the scala vestibuli or scala media, potentially negatively affecting hearing performance of CI users. This systematic review compares the lateral wall and perimodiolar arrays with respect to scalar translocation.Study Design: Systematic review.Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for studies published within the last 11 years. No other limitations were set. All studies with original data that evaluated the occurrence of scalar translocation or tip fold‐over (TF) with postoperative computed tomography (CT) following primary cochlear implantation in bilateral sensorineuronal hearing loss patients were considered to be eligible. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers.Results: We included 33 studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. Meta‐analysis of five cohort studies comparing scalar translocation between lateral wall and perimodiolar arrays showed that lateral wall arrays have significantly lower translocation rates (7% vs. 43%; pooled odds ratio = 0.12). Translocation was negatively associated with speech perception scores (weighted mean 41% vs. 55%). Tip fold‐over of the array was more frequent with perimodiolar arrays (X² = 6.8, P < .01).Conclusions: Scalar translocation and tip fold‐overs occurred more frequently with perimodiolar arrays than with lateral wall arrays. In addition, translocation of the array negatively affects hearing with the cochlear implant. Therefore, if one aims to minimize clinically relevant intracochlear trauma, lateral wall arrays would be the preferred option for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope, 131:1358–1368, 2021

Objectives Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is most often assessed in cancer patients on abdominal computed tomography (CT) imaging at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3). Abdominal CT imaging is not routinely performed in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Recently, a novel method to assess SMM on a single transversal CT slice at the level of the third cervical vertebra (C3) was published. The objective of this study was to assess the robustness of this novel C3 measurement method in terms of interobserver agreement. Patients and methods Patients diagnosed with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC) at our center between 2007 and 2011 were evaluated. Fifty-four patients with were randomly selected for analysis. Six observers independently measured the cross-sectional muscle area (CSMA) at the level of C3 using a predefined, written protocol as instruction. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), a Bland–Altman plot and Fleiss’ kappa (κ). Results The agreement in vertebra selection between all observers was excellent (Fleiss’ κ: 0.96). There was a substantial agreement between all observers in single slice selection (Fleiss’ κ: 0.61). For all CSMA measurements, ICCs were excellent (0.763–0.969; all p < 0.001). The Bland–Altman plot showed good agreement between measurements, with narrow limits of agreement. Conclusion Interobserver agreement for SMM measurement at the level of C3 was excellent. Assessment of SMM at the level of C3 is easy and robust and can performed on routinely available imaging in HNC patients.