4.2 Article

Cochlear Dysfunction is not Common in Human Meningioma of the Internal Auditory Canal

期刊

OTOLOGY & NEUROTOLOGY
卷 38, 期 10, 页码 E486-E489

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001582

关键词

Cochlear dysfunction; Histopathology; Human meningioma; Internal auditory canal

资金

  1. NIDCD [R01DC015824]
  2. Department of Defense [W81XWH-14-1-0091]
  3. Bertarelli Foundation
  4. Nancy Sayles Day Foundation
  5. Lauer Tinnitus Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: Cochlear dysfunction is not common in human meningioma of the internal auditory canal. Background: Meningiomas arising from the cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal typically cause hearing loss. Cochlear dysfunction is known to contribute to sensorineural hearing loss induced by vestibular schwannoma, the most common tumor of the internal auditory canal. Detailed cochlear histopathology in meningioma has not been reported. Methods: Retrospective analysis of cochlear histopathology in five unoperated and five operated meningiomas of the internal auditory canal identified after screening human temporal bone collections from three academic medical centers. Results: While some dysfunction of all analyzed cochlear cell types was identified, a predominant or exclusive loss of hair cells was not observed in any meningioma. Only 14.3% of temporal bones showed significantly more hair cell damage on the side of the tumor when compared with the contralateral ear; cochlear neuronal damage was more prevalent in meningiomas. The incidence of hydrops, perilymphatic precipitate, endolymphatic precipitate was low. Conclusions: Substantial cochlear damage in human meningioma of the internal auditory canal is not common. This may explain the anecdotal hearing improvement observed after surgical resection of meningioma. Our findings underline the importance of developing therapeutic strategies to prevent cochlear neuronal degeneration due to tumors of the internal auditory canal.

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

4.2
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