Cochlear Implantation in Patients With Chronic Suppurative Otitis Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center with large cochlear implant program. PATIENTS: Nineteen patients with CSOM who underwent cochlear implantation were identified. Case history, timing of surgical procedures, complications, infections, and postimplant audiometric scores (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT], City University of New York Sentences [CUNY], and Central Institute for the Deaf Sentences [CID]) were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of postoperative infections and complications as well as postimplant auditory performance. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent a staged procedure involving canal wall down mastoidectomy or radical revision mastoidectomy with middle ear and mastoid obliteration and closure of the external auditory canal followed by cochlear implantation approximately 5 months later. Seven patients were implanted in a single procedure. There were no infections or medical complications after implantation. On average, patients had excellent audiometric scores at 1 year postimplantation (mean sentence test, 79%; SD, 14), and these scores were comparable to our general population (mean sentence test, 71%; SD, 32). CONCLUSION: Cochlear implant patients with CSOM have no increased risk of postoperative infections or complications. These patients have excellent outcomes with audiometric scores comparable to the general cochlear implant population. Cochlear implantation is a safe and effective treatment for patients with profound hearing loss secondary to CSOM.
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) | 0.001 | 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".