Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2024
Does Location of Intralabyrinthine Vestibular Schwannoma Determine Objective and Subjective Vestibular Function?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
West Niels Cramer, Groth Jane Bjerg, Cayé-Thomasen Per
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The incidence of intralabyrinthine schwannomas is increasing, and a growing attention is given to the detrimental effects on hearing function. On the contrary, the vestibular profile of intralabyrinthine vestibular schwannomas (VSs) is still not well understood. We aimed to investigate and report the observed relationships between the intralabyrinthine location of the schwannomas and objective and subjective vestibular profile of the patients.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 20 consecutive individuals with sporadic intralabyrinthine schwannomas and grouped according to the intralabyrinthine location of the schwannomas. Vestibular testing consisted of the video head impulse test of all three semicircular canals, the caloric test, cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, and the dizziness handicap inventory. A nonparametric unpaired t test was performed to compare groups, and Fisher's exact test was used for categorical data.
RESULTS: The median video head impulse test gains (lateral, anterior, posterior) were 0.40, 0.50, and 0.75 for intravestibular schwannomas and 0.93, 1.52, and 0.91 for intracochlear schwannomas ( p = 0.0001, p = 0.009, p = 0.33), respectively. Caloric unilateral weakness had a median of 100% for intravestibular schwannomas and 14% for intracochlear schwannomas ( p = 0.0001). The mean dizziness handicap inventory was 21 for intravestibular schwannomas and 1 for cochlear schwannomas ( p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in vestibular evoked myogenic potentials according to intralabyrinthine location.
CONCLUSION: By both objective and subjective measures, intralabyrinthine schwannomas with an intravestibular component has significantly worse vestibular function than schwannomas with purely cochlear involvement.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 20 consecutive individuals with sporadic intralabyrinthine schwannomas and grouped according to the intralabyrinthine location of the schwannomas. Vestibular testing consisted of the video head impulse test of all three semicircular canals, the caloric test, cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, and the dizziness handicap inventory. A nonparametric unpaired t test was performed to compare groups, and Fisher's exact test was used for categorical data.
RESULTS: The median video head impulse test gains (lateral, anterior, posterior) were 0.40, 0.50, and 0.75 for intravestibular schwannomas and 0.93, 1.52, and 0.91 for intracochlear schwannomas ( p = 0.0001, p = 0.009, p = 0.33), respectively. Caloric unilateral weakness had a median of 100% for intravestibular schwannomas and 14% for intracochlear schwannomas ( p = 0.0001). The mean dizziness handicap inventory was 21 for intravestibular schwannomas and 1 for cochlear schwannomas ( p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in vestibular evoked myogenic potentials according to intralabyrinthine location.
CONCLUSION: By both objective and subjective measures, intralabyrinthine schwannomas with an intravestibular component has significantly worse vestibular function than schwannomas with purely cochlear involvement.