Comparison of Stapedotomy Minus Prosthesis, Circumferential Stapes Mobilization, and Small Fenestra Stapedotomy for Stapes Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of 3 surgical techniques for primary stapes fixation: stapedotomy minus prosthesis (STAMP), circumferential stapes mobilization (CSM), and small fenestra stapedotomy (SFS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of 277 primary cases operated for stapes fixation from 1997 to 2007. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult and pediatric cases operated for conductive hearing loss because of stapes fixation. INTERVENTIONS: STAMP was performed for otosclerosis limited to the anterior footplate, CSM was conducted for congenital stapes fixation, SFS was performed for more extensive otosclerosis or anatomic contraindications to STAMP/CSM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pure-tone audiometry was performed preoperatively and postoperatively (3-6 wk) and the most recent long-term results (≥ 12 mo). RESULTS: Ninety-nine ears in 90 patients had audiologic follow-up data over 12 months. Sixty-seven ears (68%) underwent SFS, 16 (16%) STAMP, and 16 (16%) CSM. There was significant improvement in average air conduction (AC) thresholds and air-bone gap (ABG) for all techniques. Mean ABG for SFS closed from 29 to 7.1 dB (SD, 6.0), for STAMP from 29 to 3.8 dB (SD, 5.8 dB), and for CSM from 34 to 20 dB (SD, 8.2 dB). AC results were better in the STAMP than in the SFS group, especially in high frequencies. Bone conduction improvements were seen in all groups, highest in STAMP (4.3 dB) and CSM (3.8 dB) groups, but the differences between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Satisfactory hearing results were achieved with all the techniques, and STAMP showed better hearing outcomes, especially in high frequencies. CSM is a good option for children and patients in whom it is desirable to avoid a footplate fenestration or prosthesis. CSM and STAMP had significantly higher rates of revision for refixation than SFS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".