Satoshi Kiyofuji1,2, Brian A Neff3, Matthew L Carlson3, Colin L W Driscoll3, Michael J Link4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 154-0023, Japan. kiyofuji-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. kiyofuji-tky@umin.ac.jp. 3. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Link.Michael@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vestibular schwannomas (VS) present at variable size with heterogeneous symptomatology. Modern treatment paradigms for large VS include gross total resection, subtotal resection (STR) in combination with observation, and/or radiation to achieve optimal function preservation, whereas treatment is felt to be both easier and safer for small VS. The objective is to better characterize the presentation and surgical outcomes of large and small VS. METHODS: We collected data of patients who had surgically treated VS with a posterior fossa diameter of 4.0 cm or larger (large tumor group, LTG) and smaller than 1.0 cm in cisternal diameter (small tumor group, STG). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: LTG included 48 patients (average tumor size: 44.9 mm) and STG 38 (7.9 mm). Patients in STG presented more frequently with tinnitus and sudden hearing loss. Patients in LTG underwent more STR than STG (50.0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.0001). LTG had more complications (31.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.049). Postoperative facial nerve function in STG was significantly better than LTG. STG had better hearing preoperatively (p < 0.0001) and postoperatively than LTG (p = 0.0002). Postoperative headache was more common in STG (13.2% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.045). The rate of recurrence/progression needing treatment was not statistically different between the groups (12.5% in LTG vs. 7.9% in STG, p = 0.49). Those patients who required periprocedural cerebrospinal fluid diversion had higher risk of infection (20.8% vs 4.8%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Large and small VS present differently. LTG showed more unsatisfactory outcomes in facial nerve function and postoperative hearing despite maximal efforts undertaken toward function-preservation strategy; however, similar tumor control was achieved.
BACKGROUND:Vestibular schwannomas (VS) present at variable size with heterogeneous symptomatology. Modern treatment paradigms for large VS include gross total resection, subtotal resection (STR) in combination with observation, and/or radiation to achieve optimal function preservation, whereas treatment is felt to be both easier and safer for small VS. The objective is to better characterize the presentation and surgical outcomes of large and small VS. METHODS: We collected data of patients who had surgically treated VS with a posterior fossa diameter of 4.0 cm or larger (large tumor group, LTG) and smaller than 1.0 cm in cisternal diameter (small tumor group, STG). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS:LTG included 48 patients (average tumor size: 44.9 mm) and STG 38 (7.9 mm). Patients in STG presented more frequently with tinnitus and sudden hearing loss. Patients in LTG underwent more STR than STG (50.0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.0001). LTG had more complications (31.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.049). Postoperative facial nerve function in STG was significantly better than LTG. STG had better hearing preoperatively (p < 0.0001) and postoperatively than LTG (p = 0.0002). Postoperative headache was more common in STG (13.2% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.045). The rate of recurrence/progression needing treatment was not statistically different between the groups (12.5% in LTG vs. 7.9% in STG, p = 0.49). Those patients who required periprocedural cerebrospinal fluid diversion had higher risk of infection (20.8% vs 4.8%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Large and small VS present differently. LTG showed more unsatisfactory outcomes in facial nerve function and postoperative hearing despite maximal efforts undertaken toward function-preservation strategy; however, similar tumor control was achieved.
Authors: Roy Thomas Daniel; Constantin Tuleasca; Alda Rocca; Mercy George; Etienne Pralong; Luis Schiappacasse; Michele Zeverino; Raphael Maire; Mahmoud Messerer; Marc Levivier Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2018-08-23
Authors: Matthew L Carlson; Esther X Vivas; D Jay McCracken; Alex D Sweeney; Brian A Neff; Neil T Shepard; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Matthew L Carlson; Oystein Vesterli Tveiten; Colin L Driscoll; Frederik K Goplen; Brian A Neff; Bruce E Pollock; Nicole M Tombers; Marina L Castner; Monica K Finnkirk; Erling Myrseth; Paal-Henning Pedersen; Morten Lund-Johansen; Michael J Link Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-01-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Matthew L Carlson; Øystein Vesterli Tveiten; Colin L Driscoll; Christopher J Boes; Molly J Sullan; Frederik K Goplen; Morten Lund-Johansen; Michael J Link Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Andrew J Fishman; Michelle S Marrinan; John G Golfinos; Noel L Cohen; J Thomas Roland Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Matthew G Crowson; Calhoun D Cunningham; Helen Moses; Ali R Zomorodi; David M Kaylie Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Miguel Ángel Arístegui Ruiz; Ricardo José González-Orús Álvarez-Morujo; Carlos Martín Oviedo; Fernando Ruiz-Juretschke; Roberto García Leal; Bartolomé Scola Yurrita Journal: Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp Date: 2015-12-08
Authors: Matthew L Carlson; Nicole M Tombers; Colin L W Driscoll; Jamie J Van Gompel; John I Lane; Aditya Raghunathan; Kelly D Flemming; Michael J Link Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 3.325