Clinical Indications for Canal Wall‐down Mastoidectomy in a Pediatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish clinically derived indications for performing canal wall-up or canal wall-down surgery when treating children with cholesteatoma. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary care academic pediatric otolaryngology practice. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 420 children who underwent 700 procedures for cholesteatoma between 1996 and 2010. RESULTS: The canal wall was preserved in 89.5% of cases. Common reasons for removing the canal wall were to provide access to the disease, extensive erosion of key structures, and the desire to avoid further surgery. The mean pure-tone average (PTA) for the canal wall-up group was 30 dB, whereas the canal wall-down group had a mean PTA of 45 dB. A matched-pairs analysis demonstrated that the better performance of the canal wall-up group was independent of preoperative hearing levels. Furthermore, although the presence of the stapes did influence hearing results, the canal wall-up procedure yielded better results even when the condition of the stapes was taken into account. The number needed to treat with canal wall-up to prevent 1 case of hearing loss (ie, mean threshold >30 dB) would be around 6. The need for revision surgery was higher in the canal wall-up group (51%) compared with the canal wall-down group (21%). CONCLUSION: In the setting of adequate follow-up and open access to surgical resources, most children with cholesteatoma can be managed with an intact canal wall technique. The authors believe that the better audiometric outcomes and easier postoperative care outweigh the need for revision surgery in this group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".