Single-Center Experience Evaluating Clinical Outcomes of a Novel-Guided Drill System for Percutaneous Bone-Anchored Hearing Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of a novel guided drill system for percutaneous bone-anchored hearing implants. METHODS: Between January 2016 and February 2021, patients age ≥18 years deemed potential candidates for a bone-anchored hearing device, were formally assessed for candidacy and counseling. Those that qualified and opted to proceed were added to a prospectively maintained database, including demographic, clinical, and audiologic data. Intraoperative findings were reported, as were clinical outcomes at 7 days, 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively. The Holgers index was used to grade soft tissue reactions. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent the procedure. There were 56 women, and mean age was 54 years (18-84 yr). Ninety-six were done under local anesthetic. Mean surgical time was 13 minutes (9-27 min). No significant intraoperative events were noted. There were nine cases of implant loss, all in the first 50 cases. Mean duration of implant loss was 3.6 weeks (range, 2-5 wk). At the first postoperative visit, 82 had Holgers 0, 16 Holgers 1, 2 Holgers 2, and none Holgers 3. At the second postoperative visit, excluding the 9 with implant loss, 83 (91%) had Holgers 0, 6 (7%) Holgers 1, and 2 (2%) Holgers 2. None were Holgers 3. CONCLUSIONS: The current study represents, to our knowledge, the largest series on the novel guided drill technique. Results show it is safe and efficient with low soft tissue complication rates. Drill bit design and technical modifications may have helped lower implant loss rate in this series over time.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".