Audiology & neuro-otology · 2022
Management of Vestibular Schwannoma with Normal Hearing.
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.
Salem Nervana, Galal Ahmed, Piras Gianluca, Sykopetrites Vittoria, Di Rubbo Vittoria, Talaat Mohamed, Sobhy Ossama, Sanna Mario
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This work aimed to study the management of vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients with normal hearing (NH).
METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken in a Quaternary referral center for skull base pathologies. Among 4,000 VS patients 162 met our strict audiological criteria for NH. These patients were divided into 2 management groups, wait and scan (W&S) (45/162, 25%) and operated patients (123/162, 75%), and 6 patients were included in both groups.
RESULTS: Our management strategy achieved the goals for treatment of VS. First goal, all tumors were completely removed except for 2 intentional residuals. Second goal, facial nerve (FN) function preservation (House Brackmann I, II, and III) was 95.9%. Third goal, possible hearing preservation (HP) attempts occurred in (50/122) (40.9%) with an HP rate in 44% of the patients. Additionally, there were only 2 cases of postoperative complications with no CSF leakage. The prospect of HP in NH patients did not differ with respect to tumor size. However, patients with normal preoperative ABR seemed to have better chances of HP and good FN function and vice versa. HP rate was superior for the MCFA as opposed to the RS + RLA. W&S group demonstrated hearing stability in 88.9% of the patients and FN function stability of HB I in 100% of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is a reasonable and definitive management option for VS with NH. Nevertheless, choosing to manage cases with observation remains an appropriate management option for NH patients. ABR might be considered as an adjuvant tool indicating better prognosis for HP.
METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken in a Quaternary referral center for skull base pathologies. Among 4,000 VS patients 162 met our strict audiological criteria for NH. These patients were divided into 2 management groups, wait and scan (W&S) (45/162, 25%) and operated patients (123/162, 75%), and 6 patients were included in both groups.
RESULTS: Our management strategy achieved the goals for treatment of VS. First goal, all tumors were completely removed except for 2 intentional residuals. Second goal, facial nerve (FN) function preservation (House Brackmann I, II, and III) was 95.9%. Third goal, possible hearing preservation (HP) attempts occurred in (50/122) (40.9%) with an HP rate in 44% of the patients. Additionally, there were only 2 cases of postoperative complications with no CSF leakage. The prospect of HP in NH patients did not differ with respect to tumor size. However, patients with normal preoperative ABR seemed to have better chances of HP and good FN function and vice versa. HP rate was superior for the MCFA as opposed to the RS + RLA. W&S group demonstrated hearing stability in 88.9% of the patients and FN function stability of HB I in 100% of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is a reasonable and definitive management option for VS with NH. Nevertheless, choosing to manage cases with observation remains an appropriate management option for NH patients. ABR might be considered as an adjuvant tool indicating better prognosis for HP.