4.6 Article

Radiosurgery of vestibular schwannomas: summary of experience in 829 cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages 195-199

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/jns.2005.102.s_supplement.0195

Keywords

radiosurgery; gamma knife surgery; vestibular schwannoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. Management options for vestibular schwannomas (VSs) have greatly expanded since the introduction of stereotactic radiosurgery. Optimal outcomes reflect long-term tumor control, preservation of cranial nerve function, and retention of quality of life. The authors review their 15-year experience. Methods. Between 1987 and 2002, some 829 patients with VSs underwent gamma knife surgery (GKS). Dose selection, imaging, and dose planning techniques evolved between 1987 and 1992 but thereafter remained stable for 10 years. The average tumor volume was 2.5 cm(3). The median margin dose to the tumor was 13 Gy (range 10-20 Gy). No patient sustained significant perioperative morbidity. The average duration of hospital stay was less than 1 day. Unchanged hearing preservation was possible in 50 to 77% of patients (up to 90% in those with intracanalicular tumors). Facial neuropathy risks were reduced to less than 1%. Trigeminal symptoms were detected in less than 3% of patients whose tumors reached the level of the trigeminal nerve. Tumor control rates at 10 years were 97% (no additional treatment needed). Conclusions. Superior imaging, multiple isocenter volumetric conformal dose planning, and optimal precision and dose delivery contributed to the long-term Success of GKS, including in those patients in whom initial microsurgery had failed. Gamma knife surgery provides a low risk, minimally invasive treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed or residual VS. Cranial nerve preservation and quality of life maintenance are possible in long-term follow up.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available