MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520645561 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001212

The Effect of Piston Diameter in Stapedotomy for Otosclerosis

2016· article· en· W2520645561 on OpenAlexaff
Inge Wegner, Mostafa M. A. S. Eldaebes, Thomas Landry, Wilko Grolman, Manohar Bance

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsDillon Consulting
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStapesFootplateOtosclerosisMedicineOval windowFenestrationPiston (optics)Round windowMiddle earAnatomyAudiologyCochleaSurgeryWavefrontOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HYPOTHESIS: The use of larger-diameter pistons in stapedotomy leads to better hearing outcomes compared with the use of smaller-diameter pistons. There is an interaction between stapes piston diameter and fenestration diameter. BACKGROUND: Otosclerosis can be treated surgically by removing part of the stapes and bypassing the stapes footplate with a prosthesis. Available piston shaft diameters range between 0.3 and 0.8 mm. There has been a tendency toward the use of smaller-diameter pistons, because of a suspected decreased risk of cochlear trauma and subsequent sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) with smaller pistons. However, mathematical models, temporal bone studies, and clinical studies suggest that the use of larger-diameter pistons is associated with better hearing outcomes. METHODS: Three fresh-frozen, non-pathologic temporal bones were harvested from human cadaveric donors. Acoustic stimuli in the form of pure tones 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 and round window velocities in response to the acoustic stimuli were measured at multiple equally spaced points covering the stapes footplate and round window using a scanning laser Doppler interferometry system. Eight sets of measurements were performed in each temporal bone: 1) normal condition (mobile stapes), 2) stapes fixation and stapedotomy followed by insertion of 3) a 0.4-mm-diameter piston in a 0.5-mm-diameter fenestration, 4) a 0.4-mm-diameter piston in a 0.7-mm-diameter fenestration, 5) a 0.4-mm-diameter piston in a 0.9-mm-diameter fenestration, 6) a 0.6-mm-diameter piston in a 0.7-mm-diameter fenestration, 7) a 0.6-mm-diameter piston in a 0.9-mm-diameter fenestration, and 8) a 0.8-mm-diameter piston in a 0.9-mm-diameter fenestration. RESULTS: At midrange frequencies, between 500 and 4000 Hz, round window velocities increased by 2 to 3 dB when using a 0.6-mm-diameter piston compared with a 0.4-mm-diameter piston. Using a 0.8-mm-diameter piston led to a further increase in round window velocities by 2 to 4 dB. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a modest effect of piston diameter on hearing results following stapedotomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207