MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current Use of Implants in Middle Ear Surgery

2001· article· en· W2045041072 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStapedectomyNeurotologyStapesOtosclerosisOtologyProsthesisStapes surgeryDentistryCartilageSurgeryProsthesis ImplantationBiomaterialOtorhinolaryngologyMiddle earAnatomyHead and neck surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The authors report the results of a survey of members of the American Otological Society (AOS) and the American Neurotology Society (ANS) regarding their use of prostheses currently available for ossiculoplasty and stapedectomy. These findings are compared with a similar study presented by one of the authors in 1989. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to the entire membership of the AOS and ANS with questions regarding biomaterial and prosthesis usage for stapes and chronic ear surgery, as well as satisfaction with each type of prosthesis used. Of the 575 questionnaires mailed, 274 (47%) were returned. Only 248 of the respondents performed middle ear surgery (43%), and their responses constitute the database for this study. RESULTS: For those respondents performing stapes surgery in both 1989 and 1999, the mean number of cases per year has increased from 32 to 37 (p < or = 0.004). The mean number of chronic ear cases has also increased from 95 in 1989 to 110 in 1999 (p < or = 0.001). As a biomaterial, hydroxyapatite prostheses are used by most surgeons (82%), followed by autograft and homograft bone (72%), autograft and homograft cartilage (62%), and Plastipore (59%). (Although 62% of respondents use cartilage, only 4.4% ranked it first in preference.) In 1989, bone was used most (93%), followed by cartilage (78%) and Plastipore (81%). Hydroxyapatite, which had just been introduced as a biomaterial, was used by only 9% of respondents. For stapes prostheses in 1999, the majority of respondents used stainless steel/platinum (71%), bucket handle (69%), or partial fluoroplastic (56%) prostheses. There was a high overall satisfaction rate in the use of most of these prostheses (> 85%), with several exceptions. The lowest satisfaction rate was 71% for Plastipore partial ossicular replacement prosthesis and total ossicular replacement prosthesis. Usage and satisfaction rates are presented for specific types of implants and compared with the earlier survey findings. CONCLUSION: The current use of implants in middle ear surgery demonstrates a specific pattern with a high degree of user satisfaction. The preference for implants by respondents has remained stable over the past 10 years; there has been a decrease in the percentage of use of bone, cartilage, and Plastipore with a corresponding increase in the use of hydroxyapatite.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.187 · 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