Neurosurgery · 2025
The Acoustic Neuroma-7 Score: An Externally Validated Tool Predicting Facial Nerve Outcome After Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Feghali James, Reddy Sai Chandan, Ahmed A Karim, Canales Melissa, Bhandarkar Shaan, Kramer Patrick, Ha Joe, Liu Justin, Kim Lily H, Vesole Adam S, Houssein Firas, Galaiya Deepa, Ward Bryan, Boahene Kofi, Nellis Jason, Chien Wade, Della Santina Charles C, Francis Howard, Creighton Francis, Stewart C Matthew, Carey John, Xu Risheng, Caplan Justin M, Bettegowda Chetan, Weingart Jon, Brem Henry, Tamargo Rafael J, Sun Daniel Q, Lim Michael, Jackson Christopher M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Externally validated scoring systems for facial nerve injury after vestibular schwannoma (VS) resection are lacking. We aimed to derive and externally validate a scoring system predictive of poor long-term facial nerve outcome after microsurgical resection of VS.
METHODS: Patients who underwent microsurgical resection of VS by a retrosigmoid approach at Johns Hopkins Hospital between July 2016 and April 2024 were included. An optimal stepwise multivariable logistic regression model predicting poor facial nerve outcome (House-Brackmann >2) at last follow-up was derived with a scoring system. Predictive metrics were compared with the previously published Facial Nerve Outcome Score (FNOS). An additional model using only preoperative factors was derived. External validation of accuracy and calibration was performed in Stanford Healthcare and University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
RESULTS: In 360 VS patients, 80 patients (22%) experienced poor facial nerve outcome at last follow-up (3.1 ± 2.3 years). Gross total resection was achieved in 304 patients (84%). The optimal logistic regression model based on 316 patients with available data included abnormal renal function (odds ratio [OR] = 8.3, 95% CI [1.4-48.5], P < .001), neuroma size ≥2.2 cm (OR = 3.3, [1.7-6.6], P < .001), and stimulation threshold postresection (weak stimulation OR = 7.1, [3.1-16.2], P < .001). The 7-point acoustic neuroma score outperformed FNOS in our cohort (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.807 [0.742-0.872] vs FNOS AUC = 0.696 [0.622-0.771], P < .001). Calibration plots showed excellent calibration. On external validation, AUCs of 0.713 [0.555-0.870] and 0.729 [0.547-0.911] were derived, with favorable calibration plots. A preoperative model excluding nerve stimulation threshold additionally performed well. A calculator was deployed at https://facialnervefunction.shinyapps.io/Facial_Nerve_Function_Calculator/ .
CONCLUSION: The acoustic neuroma 7 model can be used for patient counseling and for identifying high-risk patients for facial weakness while aiding in earlier referral for facial reanimation surgery.
METHODS: Patients who underwent microsurgical resection of VS by a retrosigmoid approach at Johns Hopkins Hospital between July 2016 and April 2024 were included. An optimal stepwise multivariable logistic regression model predicting poor facial nerve outcome (House-Brackmann >2) at last follow-up was derived with a scoring system. Predictive metrics were compared with the previously published Facial Nerve Outcome Score (FNOS). An additional model using only preoperative factors was derived. External validation of accuracy and calibration was performed in Stanford Healthcare and University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
RESULTS: In 360 VS patients, 80 patients (22%) experienced poor facial nerve outcome at last follow-up (3.1 ± 2.3 years). Gross total resection was achieved in 304 patients (84%). The optimal logistic regression model based on 316 patients with available data included abnormal renal function (odds ratio [OR] = 8.3, 95% CI [1.4-48.5], P < .001), neuroma size ≥2.2 cm (OR = 3.3, [1.7-6.6], P < .001), and stimulation threshold postresection (weak stimulation OR = 7.1, [3.1-16.2], P < .001). The 7-point acoustic neuroma score outperformed FNOS in our cohort (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.807 [0.742-0.872] vs FNOS AUC = 0.696 [0.622-0.771], P < .001). Calibration plots showed excellent calibration. On external validation, AUCs of 0.713 [0.555-0.870] and 0.729 [0.547-0.911] were derived, with favorable calibration plots. A preoperative model excluding nerve stimulation threshold additionally performed well. A calculator was deployed at https://facialnervefunction.shinyapps.io/Facial_Nerve_Function_Calculator/ .
CONCLUSION: The acoustic neuroma 7 model can be used for patient counseling and for identifying high-risk patients for facial weakness while aiding in earlier referral for facial reanimation surgery.