Partial Ossiculoplasty: Malafronte's Double Cartilage Block Versus Incus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of Malafronte's double cartilage block (mDCB) and incus autograft protheses, and to determine which prosthesis gives better and lasting hearing results. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: ENT Department of AORN "S.G. Moscati" Avellino, Italy MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Partial columellar ossiculoplasties were performed on 102 patients. Malafronte's DCB was used on 58 patients (group 1). The reshaped autologous incus was used on 44 patients (group 2). The main follow-up for the whole study group was 4.5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) closure to < 20 dB, incidences of prosthesis availability, prosthesis displacement from the tympanic membrane, and prothesis fixation to the middle ear walls. RESULTS: The hearing results and incidences of prosthesis availability, prosthesis slippage, and prosthesis fixation between groups 1 and 2 were significantly different. At the end of follow-up, a postoperative ABG of 20 dB or less occurred in 87.9% (n = 51) of patients in the group 1 and in 54.5% (n = 24) of patients in group 2. The Malafronte's DCB was always usable. While in 13.7% of cases, the incus was not usable. Prosthesis displacement and prothesis fixation were not observed in group 1. However, they were observed in 15 (34%) and 5 (11.3%) group 2 patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Malafronte's DCB gives more consistent hearing results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".