Cochlear Implant Surgery at 12 Months of Age or Younger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Early presentation of congenitally deaf children for cochlear implantation is leading to surgery in younger candidates. The safety of cochlear implantation in children aged 12 months and younger is reviewed with radiologic assessment of mastoid bone anatomy and surgical outcome data. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of case records and temporal bone computed tomography (CT) scans with description of surgical technique in infants. METHODS: Chart analysis of children aged 12 months or younger at cochlear implantation. Mastoid bone anatomy was compared with older children (mean age 2 years) using CT scans. RESULTS: Twenty-five infants received implants at 7 to 12 months of age because of meningitis (n = 4) or early detection of deafness (n = 21). Mastoid marrow content on CT scan was significantly greater in this age group (P < .001 Mann-Whitney rank sum test), but pneumatization was always adequate for safe identification of surgical landmarks. The smaller size of the mastoid bone was not restrictive. An extended postauricular approach was used in the first 11 cases and a 2.5 cm hair-line incision in the remainder. Ligature tie-down of the device was completed in all cases. No complications occurred. All are full-time implant users, except one with other neurologic sequelae of preoperative meningitis. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, cochlear implant surgery is safe in children aged 7 to 12 months with appropriate anesthetic and postoperative support. The small incision technique is particularly suited to this age group. Ligature fixation of the device is considered advisable because of the increased risk of displacement from frequent falls when learning to walk.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".