Stapes Surgery in Profound Hearing Loss Due to Otosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of stapes surgery in patients with profound hearing loss related to far-advanced otosclerosis and if improvement in hearing is sufficient to avoid the need for cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the charts of 16 patients who had stapes surgery in 1 or 2 ears between 2005 and 2010 for far-advanced otosclerosis. These patients were all candidates for a cochlear implant according to our institution's criteria but were offered stapes surgery first. Preoperative and postoperative audiologic data, surgical data, postoperative satisfaction, and telephone use were noted. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included, 3 of which had had bilateral surgery. Status of the oval window was evaluated at the time of surgery. Sixteen footplates had bipolar otosclerosis, and 3 had obliterative otosclerosis. Average gain in air-conduction threshold pure-tone average was 33 dB (range, 13-52 dB) and average gain in speech perception scores was 54.4% (range, 0%-93%); 94% of the patients were satisfied by the surgery, and 94% were able to use the phone postoperatively. Overall, 87% of the patients had sufficient improvement to no longer be candidates for cochlear implantation. CONCLUSION: Stapes surgery in patients with profound hearing loss due to otosclerosis is safe and can restore enough hearing to make ears aidable and averting the need to consider cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3, Retrospective series.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".