Literature DB >> 16360512

Facial nerve outcomes in middle cranial fossa vs translabyrinthine approaches.

Brandon Isaacson1, Steven A Telian, Hussam K El-Kashlan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the final facial nerve outcomes between middle cranial fossa (MCF) vs translabyrinthine (TL) resection of size-matched vestibular schwannomas. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Retrospective case review at a tertiary care hospital. All patients who underwent resection utilizing either MCF or TL approaches with tumors 18 mm or smaller and complete data were included in the analysis. One hundred twenty-four patients were identified meeting the above criteria, with sixty-three in the translabyrinthine group and sixty-one in the middle fossa group. One-week-postoperative and final facial nerve examinations were compared in the two surgical groups. Patients were separately analyzed in subgroups: tumors smaller than 10 mm and those that were between 10 and 18 mm.
RESULTS: The tumor size range for the MCF group was 3-18 mm while it was 4-18 mm for the TL group. No statistically significant difference was found in facial nerve outcomes between the two surgical groups, at the first postoperative visit week and at last follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Facial nerve outcomes are similar using TL and MCF approaches for resection of vestibular schwannomas up to 18 mm in size. SIGNIFICANCE: Patients undergoing the MCF approach for hearing preservation can be counseled that there is no increased risk of permanent facial nerve weakness, compared to the TL approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16360512     DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2005.08.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0194-5998            Impact factor:   3.497


  6 in total

1.  Outcome on hearing and facial nerve function in microsurgical treatment of small vestibular schwannoma via the middle cranial fossa approach.

Authors:  Christian Ginzkey; Matthias Scheich; Wilma Harnisch; Verena Bonn; Desiree Ehrmann-Müller; Wafaa Shehata-Dieler; Robert Mlynski; Rudolf Hagen
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Value of free-run electromyographic monitoring of lower cranial nerves in endoscopic endonasal approach to skull base surgeries.

Authors:  Parthasarathy D Thirumala; Santhosh Kumar Mohanraj; Miguel Habeych; Kelley Wichman; Yue-Fang Chang; Paul Gardner; Carl Snyderman; Donald J Crammond; Jeffrey Balzer
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2012-05-25

3.  What is the best tumor size to achieve optimal functional results in vestibular schwannoma surgery?

Authors:  Mislav Gjuric; Milan Rudic
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2008-09

4.  What really decides the facial function of vestibular schwannoma surgery?

Authors:  Jin Kim; In Seok Moon; Jun Hui Jeong; Hyung Rok Lee; Won Sang Lee
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.372

5.  Complications of microsurgery of vestibular schwannoma.

Authors:  Jan Betka; Eduard Zvěřina; Zuzana Balogová; Oliver Profant; Jiří Skřivan; Josef Kraus; Jiří Lisý; Josef Syka; Martin Chovanec
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  A novel surgeon credentialing and quality assurance process using transoral surgery for oropharyngeal cancer in ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Trial E3311.

Authors:  Robert L Ferris; Yael Flamand; F Christopher Holsinger; Gregory S Weinstein; Harry Quon; Ranee Mehra; Joaquin J Garcia; Michael L Hinni; Neil D Gross; Erich M Sturgis; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Eduardo Méndez; John A Ridge; J Scott Magnuson; Kerry A Higgins; Mihir R Patel; Russel B Smith; Daniel W Karakla; Michael E Kupferman; James P Malone; Benjamin L Judson; Jeremy Richmon; Jay O Boyle; Rodrigo Bayon; Bert W O'Malley; Enver Ozer; Giovana R Thomas; Wayne M Koch; R Bryan Bell; Nabil F Saba; Shuli Li; Elin R Sigurdson; Barbara Burtness
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 5.337

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.