Endolymphatic Sac Surgery Versus Intratympanic Gentamicin for the Treatment of Intractable Ménière’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 1) To review a 10-year experience of endolymphatic sac surgery (ESS) and intratympanic gentamicin (ITG) for intractable Ménière's disease (MD), and 2) to compare preoperative and postoperative outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and survey. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Patients treated with ESS or ITG between 1997 and 2007 at London Health Sciences Centre were eligible for recruitment. INTERVENTIONS: ESS or ITG. MAIN OUTCOMES: 1) 1995 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery hearing stage, vertigo class, and functional level; and 2) a 40-item validated quality-of-life questionnaire (MD Outcome Questionnaire). STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Chi-squared and t tests. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were recruited (n = 30 ESS; n = 37 ITG). Preoperatively, the ITG group had poorer hearing stage (p = 0.03). There were no differences between groups on preoperative functional level and QOL measures. Postoperatively, ESS patients reported more tinnitus (p = 0.003) and aural fullness (p = 0.01). There were no differences in posttreatment vertigo class. Secondary treatment was required for 27% of patients in the ESS compared with 3% in the ITG. Posttreatment hearing remained unchanged for the ITG and was overall decreased in the ESS group (p = 0.03). Participants in the ITG reported better postoperative functional levels (p = 0.02) and higher global (p = 0.04), social (p = 0.001), and overall QOL scores (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: ITG, compared with ESS, reveals better posttreatment functional levels, and superior global, social, and overall QOL scores. Although no statistical difference in vertigo class, a clinical difference is observed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".