Endolymphatic Duct Blockage: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Novel Surgical Technique for Ménière's Disease Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of the endolymphatic duct blockage (EDB) and the endolymphatic sac decompression (ESD) to control Ménière's disease symptoms and to evaluate their effect on hearing level. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective nonblinded randomized study. SETTING: Tertiary medical center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients affected by a refractory Ménière's disease were included out of which 22 underwent an ESD and 35 underwent an EDB. Five periods of follow-up were considered: 0 to 1 week, 1 week to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and 18 to 24 months. Mean outcome measurements consisted of vertigo control, tinnitus, aural fullness, instability, and hearing level. Hearing level was evaluated using pure-tone average (PTA) and speech discrimination score (SDS). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the number of vertigo spells per months preoperatively (P = .153). Twenty-four months postoperatively, 96.5% of the EDB group had achieved a complete control of vertigo spells against 37.5% of the ESD group with a statistically significant difference (P = .002). There was a better control of tinnitus and aural fullness with EDB (P = .021 and P = .014, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in hearing level preoperatively (P = .976) and 24 months postoperatively (P = .287) between the 2 groups. Hearing level was preserved in each group with no significant difference between the preoperative and the postoperative levels (P > .05). CONCLUSION: EDB is more effective than the traditional ESD in controlling the symptoms of Ménière's disease. It is a novel surgical technique with promising results for a complete treatment of Ménière's disease. There are no significant complications or adverse effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".