Effect of Round Window Reinforcement on Hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: Round window reinforcement leads to conductive hearing loss. BACKGROUND: The round window is stiffened surgically as therapy for various conditions, including perilymphatic fistula and superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Round window reinforcement reduces symptoms in these patients. However, it also reduces fluid displacement in the cochlea and might therefore increase conductive hearing loss. METHODS: Perichondrium was applied to the round window membrane in nine fresh-frozen, nonpathologic temporal bones. In four temporal bones cartilage was applied subsequently. Acoustic stimuli in the form of frequency sweeps from 250 to 8000 Hz were generated at 110 dB sound pressure level. A total of 16 frequencies in a 1/3-octave series were used. Stapes velocities in response to the acoustic stimuli were measured at equally spaced multiple points covering the stapes footplate using a scanning laser Doppler interferometry system. Measurements were made at baseline, after applying perichondrium, and after applying cartilage. RESULTS: At frequencies up to 1000 Hz perichondrium reinforcement decreased stapes velocities by 1.5 to 2.9 dB compared with no reinforcement (p value = 0.003). Reinforcement with cartilage led to a further deterioration of stapes velocities by 2.6 to 4.2 dB at frequencies up to 1000 Hz (p value = 0.050). The higher frequencies were not affected by perichondrium reinforcement (p value = 0.774) or cartilage reinforcement (p value = 0.644). CONCLUSION: Our results seem to suggest a modest, clinically negligible effect of reinforcement with perichondrium. Placing cartilage on the round window resulted in a graded effect on stapes velocities in keeping with the increased stiffness of cartilage compared with perichondrium. Even so, the effect was relatively small.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".