OBJECTIVE: To determine the hearing outcome in patients undergoing surgery via the retrosigmoid approach for acoustic neuromas with a substantial component in the cerebellopontine angle. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The medical records of all patients undergoing acoustic neuroma removal via the retrosigmoid approach at a tertiary referral center were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-four patients with both cerebellopontine angle component >or=15 mm and preoperative audiometry of class A or B (American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative average pure tone threshold and word recognition scores, categorized according to the classification of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, were used to assess hearing outcome. RESULTS: Overall, only 6.3% (4 of 63) retained good hearing (class A or B) postoperatively. Hearing preservation rate in the smallest (15- to 19-mm) group was 17.6% (3 of 17), which was better than that for the larger groups. No successful hearing preservation was achieved in tumors with >or=25 mm cerebellopontine angle component (0 of 23). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon and patient alike would always choose a hearing preservation technique if there was no potential for increased morbidity in making the attempt. When compared with the non-hearing preservation translabyrinthine approach, the retrosigmoid approach had a higher incidence of persistent headache. In addition, efforts to conserve the auditory nerve prolong operating time, increase the incidence of postoperative vestibular dysfunction, and carry a slightly higher risk of tumor recurrence. Nevertheless, even though the probability of success is disappointingly small, when excellent hearing is present we favor offering the option of a hearing conservation attempt when the patient has been well informed of the pros and cons of the endeavor. Factors weighing against undertaking this effort include larger cerebellopontine angle component (>or=25 mm), deep involvement of the fundus, wide erosion of the porus, and marginal residual hearing.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the hearing outcome in patients undergoing surgery via the retrosigmoid approach for acoustic neuromas with a substantial component in the cerebellopontine angle. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The medical records of all patients undergoing acoustic neuroma removal via the retrosigmoid approach at a tertiary referral center were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-four patients with both cerebellopontine angle component >or=15 mm and preoperative audiometry of class A or B (American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative average pure tone threshold and word recognition scores, categorized according to the classification of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, were used to assess hearing outcome. RESULTS: Overall, only 6.3% (4 of 63) retained good hearing (class A or B) postoperatively. Hearing preservation rate in the smallest (15- to 19-mm) group was 17.6% (3 of 17), which was better than that for the larger groups. No successful hearing preservation was achieved in tumors with >or=25 mm cerebellopontine angle component (0 of 23). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon and patient alike would always choose a hearing preservation technique if there was no potential for increased morbidity in making the attempt. When compared with the non-hearing preservation translabyrinthine approach, the retrosigmoid approach had a higher incidence of persistent headache. In addition, efforts to conserve the auditory nerve prolong operating time, increase the incidence of postoperative vestibular dysfunction, and carry a slightly higher risk of tumor recurrence. Nevertheless, even though the probability of success is disappointingly small, when excellent hearing is present we favor offering the option of a hearing conservation attempt when the patient has been well informed of the pros and cons of the endeavor. Factors weighing against undertaking this effort include larger cerebellopontine angle component (>or=25 mm), deep involvement of the fundus, wide erosion of the porus, and marginal residual hearing.
Authors: T A Abele; D A Besachio; E P Quigley; R K Gurgel; C Shelton; H R Harnsberger; R H Wiggins Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Daniele Starnoni; Lorenzo Giammattei; Giulia Cossu; Michael J Link; Pierre-Hugues Roche; Ari G Chacko; Kenji Ohata; Majid Samii; Ashish Suri; Michael Bruneau; Jan F Cornelius; Luigi Cavallo; Torstein R Meling; Sebastien Froelich; Marcos Tatagiba; Albert Sufianov; Dimitrios Paraskevopoulos; Idoya Zazpe; Moncef Berhouma; Emmanuel Jouanneau; Jeroen B Verheul; Constantin Tuleasca; Mercy George; Marc Levivier; Mahmoud Messerer; Roy Thomas Daniel Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 2.216