Hearing Outcomes Following Endolymphatic Duct Blockage Surgery and Factors Associated with Improved Audition at Two Years Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate hearing outcomes at 2 years post endolymphatic duct blockage (EDB) surgery, with an analysis of factors that may predict hearing improvement. Study Design: Retrospective comparative study. Setting: Tertiary care center. Subjects: Definite Ménière’s Disease (MD) patients undergoing EDB for refractory disease. Methods: Chart review was conducted to assign cases to one of the three hearing outcome groups (deteriorated, stable, and improved). All cases that met our inclusion criteria were selected. Preoperative data collected were audiograms, bithermal caloric tests, preoperative vertigo episodes, history of previous ear surgery for Ménière, intratympanic steroid injections (ITS) and intraoperative endolymphatic sac (ELS) tear or opening. Postoperative data collected at 24 months were audiograms, vertigo episodes and bithermal caloric testing. Results: Preoperative vertigo episodes, caloric paresis and history of surgery, ITS injections or ELS integrity, as well as postoperative vertigo class distribution and caloric paresis changes were not different between our groups. Preoperative word recognition score (WRS) was lowest in the improved hearing group (p = 0.032). The persistence of tinnitus at 2 years postoperatively was associated with deteriorated hearing (p = 0.033). Conclusions: There are no strong predictors of hearing improvement on presentation pre-EDB, but low preoperative WRS may be the best estimator available. Therefore, ablative interventions should be considered very carefully in patients presenting with low WRS, as they may benefit more from EDB; there is a fair chance of a good hearing outcome with EDB surgery. Persistence of tinnitus can reflect deteriorating audition. Vertigo control and hearing preservation are independent outcomes of EDB surgery, making it desirable as an early intervention for refractory MD cases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".