Quality of Life Outcomes after Surgery for Superior Canal Dehiscence Syndrome at a Canadian Academic Institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Demonstrate the applicability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in assessing effectiveness of surgery for superior canal dehiscence syndrome (SCDS) in the Canadian healthcare context. Study Design: Single-institution case series and literature review. Setting: Tertiary care center. Patients: Adults who have undergone surgery for SCDS from 2016 to 2020. Main Outcome(s): Changes in SCDS-specific symptoms, correlation between changes in SCDS-specific symptoms and DHI scores, and comparison of our results to others in the literature. Results: Of 13 patients who underwent SCDS repair, 9 (69%) and 5 (38%) participants completed the SCDS and DHI questionnaires. Following surgery, 77.8% of participants reported symptoms that led them to surgery were either “completely cured” or “much better.” Regarding SCDS-specific symptoms, changes in auditory symptoms, pressure-induced vertigo, and headache following surgery were statistically significant; changes in other non-auditory symptoms were not significant. A majority of participants ( N = 6, 67%) reported improvements in quality of life, work functioning, social engagement, and overall mood. DHI scores improved in 4 (80%) of participants. A strong positive correlation was noted between changes [LC1] in pre- and postoperative SCDS-specific symptoms and DHI scores for dizziness ( r = 0.97, p = 0.015) and imbalance ( r = 1.0, p < 0.0001). Scores on the SCDS-specific questionnaire and the DHI in our patient population compared favorably with those in previously published literature. Conclusions: Surgery for SCDS leads to improvements in patient symptoms which are measurable on both an SCDS-specific questionnaire and more general questionnaires such as the DHI. Application of PROMs is feasible in this patient population in the Canadian context, and can help better assess the effectiveness of surgical intervention ([ Figs. 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]). Publication History Article published online: 01 February 2023 © 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".