4.1 Article

Conservative management versus surgery for small vestibular schwannomas

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
Volume 125, Issue 10, Pages 1063-1068

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016480510038013

Keywords

follow-up; growth; hearing loss; imaging; vestibular schwannoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conclusion. A high rate of deterioration in hearing function and the loss of patient compliance during conservative management should be taken into account when considering hearing preservation strategies for patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS). Objective. To compare conservative management with surgery for solitary small VS. Material and methods. Among 693 patients followed up for VS between 1991 and 2002, 114 (16%) intracanalicular VSs (stage 1) and 302 (44%) VSs measuring <15 mm in the cerebellopontine angle (stage 2) were included in this study. Initially, surgery was performed in 305 (73%) cases (50 stage 1, 255 stage 2) and 111 (27%) were managed conservatively (64 stage 1, 54 stage 2) by means of annual MRI scans and audiometry. Conservative management was chosen in patients aged >60 years and in those who refused surgery. In this subgroup, the mean follow-up period was 33 months (range 6-111 months). Results. In the conservative management group, 47% of VSs showed significant growth, 47% were stable and 6% showed regression. Seventeen patients (15%) were operated on secondarily for tumour growth and 1 (1%) was irradiated for tumour growth and because surgery was contraindicated. Deterioration of hearing function by >= 1 class was observed in 56% of cases, 34% of patients were initially in hearing class D and only 10% showed stable hearing function. Of the conservative management group, 17% were lost during follow-up. After surgery, grade 1 or 2 facial function was obtained in 86% of cases. Following hearing preservation attempts (n = 137), 54% of patients were in hearing classes A-C.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available