4.2 Article

Prediction of facial nerve outcome using electromyographic responses in acoustic neuroma surgery

Journal

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 93-95

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00129492-200201000-00020

Keywords

acoustic neuroma; electromyography; facial nerve; intraoperative monitoring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine whether early and late postoperative facial nerve function can be predicted on the basis of electromyographic responses in acoustic neuroma surgery. Setting: Prospective blinded study. Design: Tertiary referral center. Patients and Methods: Burst and train electromyographic responses were recorded intraoperatively during the last step of vestibular schwannoma removal. The responses were classified and compared with early and late postoperative facial function in 49 patients who underwent enlarged translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma surgery. Results: In the early postoperative period, 20 of 22 patients with an irritable pattern and 10 of 13 patients with an ordinary pattern had Grade III or better facial nerve function, whereas all 3 patients with a stray pattern and 9 of I I patients with a silent pattern had Grade V or VI. In the late postoperative period, on the other hand, Grade III or better facial nerve function was achieved in 37 of 38 patients with an irritable, stray, or ordinary pattern, but the facial nerve function remained at Grade V or VI in 2 patients with the silent pattern. Conclusion: Patients with mechanically evoked facial electromyographic responses to the last step of tumor dissection may not experience severe facial nerve dysfunction or show a remarkable improvement. However, patients with silent electromyographic responses during this step tend to experience severe facial nerve dysfunction early in the postoperative course, and some patients may not show any functional improvement.

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