Outcomes of transmastoid resurfacing for superior canal dehiscence using a cartilage overlay technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Superior semicircular canal dehiscence is a well-described syndrome with potentially debilitating symptoms. We report on the audiologic and long-term symptom outcomes of 10 patients (12 ears) undergoing a cartilage overlay transmastoid resurfacing technique. METHODS: Retrospective chart review and cross-sectional outcomes recall survey were used. A mailed questionnaire quantifying the effect of surgery on symptom severity and patient satisfaction were used. Nonlinear regression curves of pre-/postoperative air and bone pure-tone audiometric data were used to evaluate postoperative changes in hearing. Surgical failure was defined as requiring revision surgery, and rates were estimated over time using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Most patients reported improved symptoms postoperatively and were satisfied overall with the surgical outcomes. However, four of 12 ears (33%) had a second (revision) surgery before achieving these results. Postoperatively, hearing through air and bone conduction tended to decrease at frequencies greater than 2500 Hz. The chance of avoiding a re-operation at 36 months (and up to 120 months) was estimated to be 57.1% (95% confidence interval [confidence interval]: 100%, 32.6%). The most common surgical complication was intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, encountered exclusively during dural elevation, seen in four of 12 ears (33%). CONCLUSION: Although subjectively successful at reducing symptoms, in our small sample this surgical approach did not provide a long-term stable repair and was frequently associated with intraoperative CSF leak. Offering transmastoid resurfacing to patients should involve a detailed discussion on the potential for revision surgery and risks of diminished hearing and CSF leak. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:2164-2169, 2019.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".