MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cochlear Implantation in Children With Anomalous Cochleovestibular Anatomy

2005· review· en· W2002940171 on OpenAlexaff
Blake C. Papsin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVestibular aqueductCochlear implantAudiologyCochleaVestibular systemCerebrospinal fluid leakCochlear implantationDeformityAnatomySurgeryCerebrospinal fluid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate outcomes after cochlear implantation in children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy, a review of radiological classification, surgical implantation, and outcome of 103 children with such anomalies was performed. The hypothesis was that children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy would have poorer outcomes and therefore be poorer candidates as a result of their diminished ability to interpolate and use auditory information delivered through a cochlear implant. STUDY DESIGN: A series of studies was carried out to review the cochleovestibular anomalies among 298 children implanted over the decade ending in January 2002. Children were grouped based on cochleovestibular anatomy as follows: normal (n = 195), common cavity deformity (n = 8), hypoplastic cochlea (n = 16), incomplete partition (n = 42), and vestibular aqueduct enlargement (n = 37). Concomitant anomalies of the posterior labyrinth (n = 26) and internal auditory canal/cochlear canal (n = 11) were also identified. Findings at surgery, postoperative speech perception outcomes, and speech processor programmability were examined as a function of cochleovestibular anatomy. METHODS: A database containing demographics (age at implant, duration of implant use), audiological characteristics, pure-tone average, surgical findings (cerebrospinal fluid leak/perilymph leak, abnormal facial nerve anatomy), speech perception data (from two closed-set and three open-set tests), and data relating to speech processor programmability were used for analysis. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response was measured in 94 of the children (2 cases of common cavity deformity, 7 of hypoplastic cochlea; 10 of incomplete partition; and 12 of vestibular aqueduct enlargement). Response morphological findings were assessed by visual inspection of the waveforms. Data were analyzed using analyses of variance with post hoc testing using the Bonferroni multiple-comparisons test. To further assess differences in outcomes between different categories of cochleovestibular anomalies, linear regression analyses were performed. The significance level was set at P < .05. RESULTS: The use of high-resolution imaging techniques resulted in the detection of a cochleovestibular anomaly in 35% of implanted ears. Implantation was more challenging in 24% of the children as a result of abnormal middle ear anatomy (17.5%) or cerebrospinal fluid leak/perilymph leak (6.7%). There was no significant difference in speech perception scores in children with anomalous cochleae compared with children with normal cochleovestibular anatomy. Children with narrowing of the internal auditory canal/cochlear canal performed more poorly than all other groups. Children with common cavity deformity and hypoplastic cochlea had reduced dynamic range and increased incidence of facial simulation and were judged to be more difficult to program despite the fact that no fewer electrodes were inserted. Children with common cavity deformity and hypoplastic cochlea tended to require wider pulse widths more often than children in other groups, and these requirements were associated with abnormal morphological findings on evoked auditory brainstem response testing. CONCLUSION: The authors have been continuing to assess the candidacy of each child applying for cochlear implantation individually, and the results of present study have suggested that the presence of anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy, with the exception of narrowing of the internal auditory canal/cochlear canal, should not play a significant role in candidacy assessment. Children with narrow internal auditory canal/cochlear canal should be carefully and individually considered. In children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy, the potentially increased difficulty in the establishment of optimal stimulation levels and the higher potential for surgical difficulty must be weighed in candidacy decisions but do not universally preclude successful implantation and a good outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations375
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207