4.5 Article

Pathophysiology of sensorineural hearing loss in jugular foramen paraganglioma

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 129, Issue 1, Pages 67-75

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.27343

Keywords

Paraganglioma; cochlea; hearing loss; cochlear aqueduct; glomus jugulare; inferior cochlear vein

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/Hypothesis Pathologic involvement of the inferior cochlear vein is a mechanism of sensorineural hearing loss in patients with jugular foramen paraganglioma. Study Design Retrospective case-control study. Methods The presenting audiograms, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography were reviewed in 46 subjects with jugular foramen paragangliomas. Four-frequency bone conduction average was compared between the tumor and nontumor ears in each subject to establish the presence of sensorineural hearing loss. Imaging findings for each subject were recorded. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to determine which radiographic features were associated with sensorineural hearing loss. Hearing data were analyzed as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable. Results Twenty subjects (43.4%) had a bone-conduction pure-tone asymmetry of greater than 15 dB. Inferior cochlear vein involvement was identified in 19 of the 20 (95%) subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Inferior cochlear vein involvement was found to be a statistically significant predictor of sensorineural hearing loss using univariate and multivariate analyses. Other imaging findings that were statistically significant predictors of sensorineural hearing loss include Glasscock-Jackson stage, Fisch-Mattox stage, hypoglossal canal involvement, jugulo-carotid spin erosion, and petrous carotid canal erosion. Conclusions Involvement of the inferior cochlear vein appears to be a plausible mechanism for sensorineural hearing loss in patients with jugular foramen paraganglioma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available