Facial Schwannoma Management Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate facial nerve outcomes of various management strategies for facial schwannomas by assimilating individualized patient data from the literature to address controversies in management.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed-National Center for Biotechnology Information and Scopus databases.
REVIEW
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed for studies regarding facial schwannomas. Studies were included if they presented patient-level data, type of intervention, pre- and postintervention House-Brackmann (HB) grades, and tumor location by facial nerve segment.
RESULTS
Individualized data from 487 patients were collected from 31 studies. Eighty (16.4%) facial schwannomas were managed with observation, 25 (5.1%) with surgical decompression, 20 (4.1%) with stereotactic radiosurgery, 225 (46.2%) with total resection, and 137 (28.1%) with subtotal resection/stripping surgery. Stripping surgery/subtotal resection with good preoperative facial nerve function maintained HB grade 1 or 2 in 96% of cases. With a total resection of intradural tumors, preoperative HB grade did not significantly affect facial nerve outcome (n = 45, P = .46). However, a lower preoperative HB grade was associated with a better facial nerve outcome with intratemporal tumors (n = 56, P = .009). When stereotactic radiosurgery was performed, 40% of patients had improved, 35% were stable, and 25% had worsened facial function. Facial nerve decompression rarely affected short-term facial nerve status.
CONCLUSION
The data from this study help delineate which treatment strategies are best in which clinical scenarios. The findings can be used to develop a more definitive management algorithm for this complicated pathology.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.