Comparative Impacts of Scala Vestibuli Versus Scala Tympani Cochlear Implantation on Auditory Performances and Programming Parameters in Partially Ossified Cochleae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare scala vestibuli versus scala tympani cochlear implantation in terms of postoperative auditory performances and programming parameters in patients with severe scala tympani ossification. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: One hundred three pediatric and adult patients who underwent cochlear implant surgery between 2000 and 2016. Three groups were formed: a scala vestibuli group, a scala tympani with ossification group, and a scala tympani without ossification group. Patients were matched based on their age, sex, duration of deafness, and side of implantation (ratio of 1:2:2). INTERVENTIONS: Postoperative evaluation of auditory performances and programming parameters following intensive functional rehabilitation program completion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Multimedia adaptive test (MAT), hearing in noise test (HINT SNR +10 dB, HINT SNR +5 dB, and HINT SNR +0 dB), impedances, neural response telemetry thresholds (NRT), neural response imaging thresholds (NRI), comfortable levels (C-levels), and threshold levels (T-levels) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent scala vestibuli cochlear implantation: 19 adults and two children. Auditory performances were similar between groups, although sentence recognition in a noisy environment was slightly higher in the scala vestibuli group. Impedance values were also higher in the scala vestibuli group, but all other programming parameters were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We present the largest series of patients with scala vestibuli cochlear implantation. This approach provides at least comparable auditory performances without having any deleterious effects on programming parameters. This viable and useful insertion route might be the primary surgical alternative when facing partial cochlear ossification.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".