Passive Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Implants: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on currently available passive transcutaneous bone conduction hearing implants (pTCBI) with regard to complications, audiological outcomes, and quality-of-life scores. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: All identified English-language articles reporting on the implantation of currently available pTCBI's and their complications. Both pediatric and adult patients were included. No limitation was placed on study design or level of evidence. DATA EXTRACTION: Complications, audiological outcomes including mean pure-tone average gain and mean speech reception threshold gain, and quality-of-life outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six articles were included in the review. Four hundred eighty-two pTCBIs have been reported in the literature. Major complications including skin breakdown, wound dehiscence, hematoma, seroma, and inability to use the device occurred in 5.2% of patients. Minor complications including pain and self-resolving erythema at the implant site occurred in 13.1% of the patients. The weighted mean pure-tone average gain of the two included devices was 28.4 ± 2.1 dB and the mean speech reception threshold gain was 32.9 ± 3.9 dB. Favorable quality-of-life scores have been demonstrated with pTCBIs. CONCLUSION: pTCBIs are a viable alternative to percutaneous devices in a carefully selected group of patients. These devices have demonstrated good audiological outcomes, low morbidity, and high patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".