MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055758577 · doi:10.1159/000338689

Esteem 2 Middle Ear Implant: Our Experience

2012· article· en· W2055758577 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Marc Gérard, Marie‐Paule Thill, Gilbert Chantrain, M Gersdorff, N. Deggouj

Bibliographic record

VenueAudiology and Neurotology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-Luc
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSensorineural hearing lossImplantPalsyHearing lossAudiologyMiddle earRetrospective cohort studyCochlear implantSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Esteem is a totally implantable hearing system that uses piezoelectric technology. It is indicated in case of moderate to severe stable sensorineural hearing loss with a minimum discrimination score of 60% and a middle ear which is anatomically and functionally intact. Its two components (sensor and driver) are positioned and fixed in the mastoid cavity and coupled respectively to the incus body and capitulum with cement. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pure-tone average (PTA) gain in the implanted ear was calculated at 1, 2, and 4 KHz, word recognition score (WRS) gain at 50 dB SPL, and average WRS (AWRS) gain at 40, 55, and 70 dB SPL. WRS was also evaluated in silence and noise. All patients were asked to fill in the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) questionnaire pre- and postoperatively as well as an Esteem questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirteen patients received implants between May 2008 and April 2010. Five minor complications occurred (1 temporary partial facial palsy, 1 secondary healing difficulty, and 3 revision surgeries for poor and deteriorating functional results and progressive gain loss after use of a heart defibrillator). Two patients (15%) suffered major complications and their implants had to be removed 4 months postoperatively because of a Staphylococcus aureus wound infection. One patient underwent reimplantation 6 months later. Mean PTA gain was 25 ± 11 dB, mean WRS gain at 50 dB SPL was 64 ± 33%, and mean AWRS gain was 40 ± 20%. WRS in silence and with a signal-noise ratio of 10, 0, and -5 dB was 91 ± 11, 85 ± 14, 71 ± 19, and 64 ± 30%, respectively. The APHAB questionnaire revealed 84% of satisfaction improvement compared to the previous classic hearing aid. CONCLUSION: The totally implantable hearing device Esteem 2 can offer good functional and satisfaction results. Careful selection of patients is required, however, based on hearing tests, exclusion of middle ear ventilation problems, and CAT-scan middle ear anatomy. Specific surgical training and experience are also needed. The implant is safe and only associated with classic auditory implant complications.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAudiology and NeurotologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207