4.6 Article

Facial Nerve Preservation Surgery for Koos Grade 3 and 4 Vestibular Schwannomas

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 671-675

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000547

关键词

Acoustic neuroma; Facial nerve preservation; Koos stage 3; Postoperative hearing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Facial nerve preservation surgery for large vestibular schwannomas is a novel strategy for maintaining normal nerve function by allowing residual tumor adherent to this nerve or root-entry zone. OBJECTIVE: To report, in a retrospective study, outcomes for large Koos grade 3 and 4 vestibular schwannomas. METHODS: After surgical treatment for vestibular schwannomas in 52 patients (2004-2013), outcomes included extent of resection, postoperative hearing, and facial nerve function. Extent of resection defined as gross total, near total, or subtotal were 7 (39%), 3 (17%), and 8 (44%) in 18 patients after retrosigmoid approaches, respectively, and 10 (29.5%), 9 (26.5%), and 15 (44%) for 34 patients after translabyrinthine approaches, respectively. RESULTS: Hearing was preserved in 1 (20%) of 5 gross total, 0 of 2 near-total, and 1 (33%) of 3 subtotal resections. Good long-term facial nerve function (House-Brackmann grades of I and II) was achieved in 16 of 17 gross total (94%), 11 of 12 near-total (92%), and 21 of 23 subtotal (91%) resections. Long-term tumor control was 100% for gross total, 92% for near-total, and 83% for subtotal resections. Postoperative radiation therapy was delivered to 9 subtotal resection patients and 1 near-total resection patient. Follow-up averaged 33 months. CONCLUSION: Our findings support facial nerve preservation surgery in becoming the new standard for acoustic neuroma treatment. Maximizing resection and close postoperative radiographic follow-up enable early identification of tumors that will progress to radiosurgical treatment. This sequential approach can lead to combined optimal facial nerve function and effective tumor control rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据