Medial Canal Fibrosis: Surgical Technique, Results, and a Proposed Grading System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the hearing and surgical results in patients with medial canal fibrosis. To describe the surgical technique for removal of medial canal fibrosis and to propose a classification for grading postoperative surgical outcome and to correlate this with hearing results. SETTING: Tertiary university referral center. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with mature medial canal fibrosis underwent a total of 26 operations at our institution from February 1994 to June 2003. Four patients underwent surgery for bilateral disease and another had a second operation for recurrence. RESULTS: According to the proposed grading system, 10 (38.5%) of the 29 ears operated on achieved a Grade I result (normal self-cleaning ears) and three (11.5%) had recurrence (Grade III). One patient was found to have external ear canal cholesteatoma. Postoperatively, 15 ears demonstrated closure of the air-bone gap to within 10 dB or improvement on four-frequency average pure-tone audiogram to better than 25 dB. The mean preoperative air-bone gap was 28.7 dB compared with 12.5 dB postoperatively (p < 0.001). When hearing results were correlated with postoperative grade, 90.0% of the ears with a Grade I result had significant hearing improvement, 46.2% in patients with Grade II and 33.3% in patients with Grade III results. Four patients complained of temporomandibular joint pain postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Surgery remains the treatment of choice for mature medial canal fibrosis. With proper surgical technique and meticulous postoperative care, a patent and functioning external ear canal can be achieved in a majority of patients. Absence of recurrence does not equate with improved hearing thresholds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".