Louis Pogoda1, Jelle S Nijdam1, Diederik P J Smeeing2, Eduard H J Voormolen3, Fuat Ziylan4, Hans G X M Thomeer5,6. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. H.G.X.M.Thomeer@umcutrecht.nl. 6. Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. H.G.X.M.Thomeer@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postoperative headache (POH) is a complication that occurs after surgical resection of cerebellopontine angle (CPA) tumors. The two most common surgical approaches are the translabyrinthine (TL), and retrosigmoid (RS) approach. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate whether POH occurs more frequently after RS compared to TL approaches. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Cochrane, Pubmed and Embase. Studies were included if POH after CPA tumor removal was reported and both surgical approaches were compared. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: In total, 3,942 unique articles were screened by title and abstract. After the initial screening process 63 articles were screened for relevance to the inquiry, of which seven studies were included. Three studies found no significant difference between both surgical approaches (p = 0.871, p = 0.120, p = 0.592). Three other studies found a lower rate of POH in the TL group compared to the RS group (p = 0.019, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Another study showed a significantly lower POH rate in the TL group after one and six months (p = 0.006), but not after 1 year (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review show some evidence of a lower rate of POH in favor of the TL approach versus the RS approach for CPA tumor resection. Prospective research studies are needed to further investigate this finding.
PURPOSE: Postoperative headache (POH) is a complication that occurs after surgical resection of cerebellopontine angle (CPA) tumors. The two most common surgical approaches are the translabyrinthine (TL), and retrosigmoid (RS) approach. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate whether POH occurs more frequently after RS compared to TL approaches. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Cochrane, Pubmed and Embase. Studies were included if POH after CPA tumor removal was reported and both surgical approaches were compared. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: In total, 3,942 unique articles were screened by title and abstract. After the initial screening process 63 articles were screened for relevance to the inquiry, of which seven studies were included. Three studies found no significant difference between both surgical approaches (p = 0.871, p = 0.120, p = 0.592). Three other studies found a lower rate of POH in the TL group compared to the RS group (p = 0.019, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Another study showed a significantly lower POH rate in the TL group after one and six months (p = 0.006), but not after 1 year (p = 0.6). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review show some evidence of a lower rate of POH in favor of the TL approach versus the RS approach for CPA tumor resection. Prospective research studies are needed to further investigate this finding.
Authors: Ted A Meyer; Paul A Canty; Eric P Wilkinson; Marlan R Hansen; Jay T Rubinstein; Bruce J Gantz Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: C Santa Maria; P L Santa Maria; V Bulsara; J Jayawardena; J D Caldow; L H Png; M D Atlas Journal: J Laryngol Otol Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 1.469
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: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
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
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Rafael Martinez-Perez; Katherine E Kunigelis; Ryan C Ward; Timothy H Ung; Gregory D Arnone; Stephen P Cass; Samuel P Gubbels; A Samy Youssef Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 2.816