Benefit of the Vibrant Soundbridge Device in Patients Implanted For 5 to 8 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: To assess audiological performance, satisfaction rate, and side effects of 100 patients who have been using the middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) for 5 to 8 yr when compared with data collected from 3 to 18 mo postsurgery. Design: Audiological testing and subjective evaluation using self-assessment scales were performed in 77 out of the 100 patients using the VSB for 5 to 8 years. The results were compared to data collected 3 months (audiological testing) and 18 months (self-assessment scales) after surgery. Twenty-three patients have not been evaluated for different reported reasons. Results: Pure-tone hearing thresholds decreased similarly in both implanted and contralateral ears. The satisfaction ratings and the functional gain provided by the VSB remained stable. Speech comprehension in quiet conditions without the VSB decreased from 56 to 37% in 5 to 8 yr, but an 81% score was achieved with the VSB. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the performance of the VSB does not deteriorate for more than 5 yr, without adverse effect. These results confirm the safety and the effectiveness of the VSB with a long-term follow-up. This study assesses audiological performances, satisfaction rate, and side effects of 100 patients using the middle ear implant Vibrant Soundbridge (VSB) for 5 to 8 years. The functional gain of the device remains unchanged over time. Despite a speech comprehension deterioration due to the natural history of the hearing loss, the VSB still provided an important benefit (81% in quiet for disyllabic words with the VSB compared to 37% without the VSB). The satisfaction rate remained stable (77% of patients satisfied). No adverse effect due to the device on the ossicular chain is reported. The incidence of side effects remained very low.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".