Far Advanced Otosclerosis: Stapes Surgery or Cochlear Implantation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nowadays, two surgical alternatives are to be considered in patients with far advanced otosclerosis: stapedectomy and cochlear implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the hearing and communicative results obtained in two groups of patients affected with far advanced otosclerosis, who were treated with the two different surgical procedures, to assess the proper surgical approach for these patients. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTINGS: University hospital and referral audiologic centre. METHODS: We submitted 11 adult patients, affected by far advanced otosclerosis and exhibiting unsatisfactory communicative abilities with hearing aids, to two different procedures: 5 to cochlear implantation, and 6 to stapedotomy followed by hearing aid fitting. The benefits afforded by the two procedures were assessed by means of pure-tone audiometry and speech audiometry in an open field and by means of a speech perception test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing and communicative outcomes, measured 1 year after intervention. RESULTS: The results achieved in the patients subjected to stapedotomy were unpredictable and variable: very good in some cases but unsatisfactory in others, whereas those who had cochlear implantation all achieved satisfactory results with regard to speech recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent cochlear implantation achieved better hearing and communicative results than those who underwent stapedotomy. Even if the number of patients reported in this study is too small to provide definitive results, and despite the reportedly better results afforded by cochlear implantation, in our opinion, correction of far advanced otosclerosis should first be attempted via stapedotomy, and cochlear implantation should instead be reserved for cases in which stapedotomy is unsuccessful or for which imaging techniques unequivocally reveal a fenestral or cochlear obstruction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".