Hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma surgery: middle fossa versus retrosigmoid approach.

H Staecker, J B Nadol, R Ojeman, S Ronner, M J McKenna
{"title":"Hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma surgery: middle fossa versus retrosigmoid approach.","authors":"H Staecker,&nbsp;J B Nadol,&nbsp;R Ojeman,&nbsp;S Ronner,&nbsp;M J McKenna","doi":"10.1016/s0196-0709(00)80051-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the results of the middle fossa approach with those of the retrosigmoid approach in acoustic neuroma hearing preservation surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Tertiary care facility.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients of the otology service with acoustic neuromas and useful hearing. Fifteen intracanalicular tumors were removed via a middle fossa approach and matched with 15 intracanalicular tumors removed via the retrosigmoid approach. Four additional patients with larger tumors were operated on via the middle fossa approach and matched with patients having similar tumors removed via the retrosigmoid approach.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The 1994 Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma were applied. Facial nerve results were graded according to the House-Brackmann grading scale 3 months postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the group operated on by the middle fossa approach, the average preoperative pure-tone threshold average (PTA) was 23 dB with a word recognition score (WRS) of 79%, and the postoperative PTA averaged 49 dB with a mean WRS of 56%. In the group operated on by the retrosigmoid approach, the mean preoperative PTA was 16 dB with a WRS of 95% and a postoperative PTA value of 62 dB and WRS of 51% (hearing preservation rate of 47%). The middle fossa patients had an average change in PTA of 19 dB and an average change in WRS of 20% (hearing preservation rate of 57%). Overall, the retrosigmoid patients had an average change in PTA of 42 dB and an average change in WRS of 40%. The average change in PTA for larger tumors removed via the middle fossa approach was 32 dB, whereas all matched retrosigmoid patients lost all hearing. The rate of cerebrospinal fluid leak and facial nerve outcomes were similar between the two groups. The retrosigmoid group had a higher rate of postoperative headache.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the retrosigmoid approach, the middle fossa approach for hearing preservation surgery yields better hearing results for intracanalicular tumors and also has a lower incidence of postoperative headache.</p>","PeriodicalId":76596,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of otology","volume":"21 3","pages":"399-404"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"111","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0709(00)80051-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 111

Abstract

Objective: To compare the results of the middle fossa approach with those of the retrosigmoid approach in acoustic neuroma hearing preservation surgery.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Tertiary care facility.

Patients: Patients of the otology service with acoustic neuromas and useful hearing. Fifteen intracanalicular tumors were removed via a middle fossa approach and matched with 15 intracanalicular tumors removed via the retrosigmoid approach. Four additional patients with larger tumors were operated on via the middle fossa approach and matched with patients having similar tumors removed via the retrosigmoid approach.

Main outcome measures: The 1994 Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma were applied. Facial nerve results were graded according to the House-Brackmann grading scale 3 months postoperatively.

Results: In the group operated on by the middle fossa approach, the average preoperative pure-tone threshold average (PTA) was 23 dB with a word recognition score (WRS) of 79%, and the postoperative PTA averaged 49 dB with a mean WRS of 56%. In the group operated on by the retrosigmoid approach, the mean preoperative PTA was 16 dB with a WRS of 95% and a postoperative PTA value of 62 dB and WRS of 51% (hearing preservation rate of 47%). The middle fossa patients had an average change in PTA of 19 dB and an average change in WRS of 20% (hearing preservation rate of 57%). Overall, the retrosigmoid patients had an average change in PTA of 42 dB and an average change in WRS of 40%. The average change in PTA for larger tumors removed via the middle fossa approach was 32 dB, whereas all matched retrosigmoid patients lost all hearing. The rate of cerebrospinal fluid leak and facial nerve outcomes were similar between the two groups. The retrosigmoid group had a higher rate of postoperative headache.

Conclusions: Compared with the retrosigmoid approach, the middle fossa approach for hearing preservation surgery yields better hearing results for intracanalicular tumors and also has a lower incidence of postoperative headache.

听神经瘤手术中的听力保护:中窝与乙状结肠后入路。
目的:比较乙状窦后入路与中窝入路在听神经瘤保听手术中的效果。研究设计:回顾性研究。环境:三级医疗机构。患者:耳科有听神经瘤和有用听力的患者。15例管内肿瘤经中窝入路切除,15例管内肿瘤经乙状窦后入路切除。另外4例较大肿瘤的患者通过中窝入路进行手术,并与乙状结肠后入路切除类似肿瘤的患者相匹配。主要结果测量:采用1994年听力与平衡委员会关于听神经瘤听力保留评估的指南。术后3个月按House-Brackmann评分法对面神经结果进行评分。结果:中窝入路组术前平均纯音阈值平均值(PTA)为23 dB,单词识别评分(WRS)为79%;术后平均PTA为49 dB,平均WRS为56%。经乙状结肠后入路手术组,术前平均PTA为16 dB, WRS为95%;术后平均PTA为62 dB, WRS为51%(听力保留率47%)。中窝组患者PTA平均变化19 dB, WRS平均变化20%(听力保留率57%)。总体而言,乙状结肠后患者的PTA平均变化为42 dB, WRS平均变化为40%。通过中窝入路切除的较大肿瘤的PTA平均变化为32 dB,而所有匹配的乙状结肠后患者完全丧失听力。两组脑脊液漏出率和面神经预后相似。乙状结肠后组术后头痛发生率较高。结论:与乙状结肠后入路相比,中窝入路行小管内肿瘤保听手术听力效果更好,术后头痛发生率更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信