4.5 Article

Surgical Treatment of Vestibular Schwannoma: Does Age Matter?

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 58-65

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.054

关键词

Acoustic neuroma; Complications; Elderly; Microsurgical resection; Outcomes; Vestibular schwannoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: For older patients (> 65 years) who undergo surgical treatment of vestibular schwannoma (VS), the reported rates of facial nerve preservation, hearing preservation, and complications are inconsistent. Many surgeons believe that older patients have worse outcomes than their younger counterparts and advise against surgical treatment. We analyzed a consecutive series of patients with VS treated with surgery to determine whether age was a factor in outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated for VS at our institution from January 1, 2000, to July 1, 2012. We examined how sex, age (>= 65 years and < 65 years), race, tumor size, tumor laterality, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, smoking status, surgical approach, and preoperative hearing and symptoms were associated with outcomes. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-three patients underwent resection of VS, including 23 patients >= 65 years (mean 68 +/- 4 years) and 220 patients < 65 years (mean 47 +/- 11 years). The average tumor size was 16.5 mm. Older patients had a significantly lower body mass index of 26.6 vs. 29.8 (P = 0.03) and were more likely to have a CCI >= 2 (52.2% vs. 18.2%, P <= 0.00, preoperative facial numbness (34.8% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.03), and dizziness (78.3% vs. 49.3%, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences after surgery in facial nerve outcome, hearing preservation outcome, or general surgical complications between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: With no difference in surgical complications, facial nerve outcome, or hearing preservation rates between older and younger patients in our series, age alone may not be an absolute contraindication to surgical management of VS.

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

4.5
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