Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2019 Dec 13;10:1281. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01281

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2019 Wackym, Balaban, Zhang, Siker and Hundal.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

PMC Copyright notice

(A) Pretreatment scattergram of audiometric data for the 8 patients (9 ears) who underwent round window reinforcement (RWR) for management of cochlea-facial nerve dehiscence (CFD) (n = 8, Group 1) and CT negative (CT–) third window syndrome (TWS) (n = 1). Seven of the 9 ears had a 4-frequency air-bone gap/pseudoconductive hearing loss between 2.5 and 8.75 dB (mean 5.63 dB). One subject (Table 1, Group 1 Patient 2) had a true conductive hearing loss with a pretreatment 4-frequency air-bone gap of 42.5 dB in his right ear; which had the CFD (see Figure 2). His other ear with the CT– TWS had a pretreatment air-bone gap of 6.25 dB and his pretreatment speech discrimination score was 88% on the left that improved to 100% post-treatment. Copyright © P.A. Wackym, used with permission. (B) Post-treatment scattergram of audiometric data for 9 patients who underwent round window reinforcement (RWR) for management of cochlea-facial nerve dehiscence (CFD) (n = 8) and CT negative (CT–) third window syndrome (TWS) (n = 1) in 8 subjects. Six ears had no change in word recognition score (WRS), including the 1 ear with a true conductive hearing loss and CFD (Patient 2). This same subject (Patient 2) had a CT– TWS (Figure 2) on the left and had a pretreatment speech discrimination score of 88% that improved to 100% post-treatment. Excluding the ear of Patient 2 with the true conductive hearing loss, the pseudoconductive hearing loss with the added conductive hearing loss as a result of the RWR procedure had a mean 4-frequency air-bone gap of 10.94 dB (range 5–23.75 dB). As shown in the scatterplot, 8 ears had worsening of the air-bone gap; while only Patient 5 had an improvement from 7.5 to 5 dB for the 4-frequency air-bone gap. This likely represents the test-retest variability. There was no statistically significant difference in the 4-frequency air-bone gap pretreatment compared to post-treatment (p = 0.091). Copyright ^©P.A. Wackym, used with permission.