Hair Barrette Induced Cochlear Implant Receiver Stimulator Site Infection with Extrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cochlear implant infections and extrusion are uncommon but potentially devastating complications. Recent literature suggests conservative management can be employed. Local measures inclusive of aggressive surgical debridement with vascularized flaps and parenteral antibiotics represent a viable option and often permit device salvage. However, explantation should be considered if there is evidence of systemic, intracranial, or intractable infection. Method. A Case report and literature review. Case Report. This case illustrates a complicated local wound infection associated with cochlear implantation due to transcutaneous adherence of a ferrous hair barrette to a cochlear implant magnet. Reconstruction of computed tomography (CT) data with 3D volume rendering significantly improved the value of the images and facilitated patient counseling as well as operative planning. Conclusion. Cochlear implant infections can be associated with foreign bodies. CT images are beneficial in the evaluation of cochlear implant complications. 3D CT images provide a comprehensive view of the site of interest, displaying the relationship of the hardware to the skull and soft tissues, while minimizing associated artifacts. Cochlear implant patients should consider use of nonmetallic hair devices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".