4.2 Article

The incidence of cerebrospinal fluid leak after vestibular schwannoma surgery

Journal

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 387-393

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200405000-00030

Keywords

acoustic; cerebrospinal fluid; meta-analysis; neuroma; operative; otologic surgical procedures; surgical procedures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To review the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid leak after vestibular schwannoma removal reported in the literature. Data Sources: MEDLINE and PubMed literature search using the terms acoustic neuroma or vestibular schwannoma, and 11 cerebrospinal fluid leak or cerebrospinal fluid fistula covering the period from 1985 to the present in the English lan-guage literature. A review of bibliographies of these studies was also performed. Study Selection: Criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis consisted of the availability of extractable data from studies presenting a defined group of patients who had undergone primary vestibular schwannoma removal and for whom the presence and absence of cerebrospinal fluid leakage was reported. Studies reporting combined approaches were excluded. No duplications of patient populations were included. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction: Quality of the studies was determined by the design of each study and the ability to combine the data with the results of other studies. All of the studies were biased by their retrospective, nonrandomized nature. Data Synthesis: Significance (p < 0.05) was determined using the X-2 test. Conclusions: Cerebrospinal fluid leak occurred in 10.6% of 2,273 retrosigmoid surgeries, 9.5% of 3,118 translabyrinthine Surgeries, and 10.6% of 573 middle fossa surgeries. The type of cerebrospinal fluid leak was not associated with surgical approach. Meningitis was significantly associated with cerebrospinal fluid leak (p < 0.05), Age and tumor size were not associated with cerebrospinal fluid leak.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available