Retrosigmoid versus middle fossa approach for hearing and facial nerve preservation in vestibular schwannoma surgery: A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.

Acoustic neurinoma Middle fossa approach Retrosigmoid approach Vestibular schwannoma

Journal

Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia
ISSN: 1532-2653
Titre abrégé: J Clin Neurosci
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 9433352

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 02 12 2023
revised: 28 03 2024
accepted: 07 04 2024
medline: 15 4 2024
pubmed: 15 4 2024
entrez: 14 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are benign tumors arising from vestibular nerve's Schwann cells. Surgical resection via retrosigmoid (RS) or middle fossa (MF) is standard, but the optimal approach remains debated. This meta-analysis evaluated RS and MF approaches for VS management, emphasizing hearing preservation and Cranial nerve seven (CN VII) outcomes stratified by tumor size. Systematic searches across PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase identified relevant studies. Hearing and CN VII outcomes were gauged using the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Gardner Robertson, and House-Brackmann scores. Among 7228 patients, 56 % underwent RS and 44 % MF. For intracanalicular tumors, MF recorded 38 % hearing loss, compared to RS's 54 %. In small tumors (<1.5 cm), MF showed 41 % hearing loss, contrasting RS's lower 15 %. Medium-sized tumors (1.5 cm-2.9 cm) revealed 68 % hearing loss in MF and 55 % in RS. Large tumors (>3cm) were only reported in RS with a hearing loss rate of 62 %. Conclusively, while MF may be preferable for intracanalicular tumors, RS demonstrated superior hearing preservation for small to medium-sized tumors. This research underlines the significance of stratified outcomes by tumor size, guiding surgical decisions and enhancing patient outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Vestibular schwannomas (VS) are benign tumors arising from vestibular nerve's Schwann cells. Surgical resection via retrosigmoid (RS) or middle fossa (MF) is standard, but the optimal approach remains debated. This meta-analysis evaluated RS and MF approaches for VS management, emphasizing hearing preservation and Cranial nerve seven (CN VII) outcomes stratified by tumor size.
METHODS METHODS
Systematic searches across PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase identified relevant studies. Hearing and CN VII outcomes were gauged using the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Gardner Robertson, and House-Brackmann scores.
RESULTS RESULTS
Among 7228 patients, 56 % underwent RS and 44 % MF. For intracanalicular tumors, MF recorded 38 % hearing loss, compared to RS's 54 %. In small tumors (<1.5 cm), MF showed 41 % hearing loss, contrasting RS's lower 15 %. Medium-sized tumors (1.5 cm-2.9 cm) revealed 68 % hearing loss in MF and 55 % in RS. Large tumors (>3cm) were only reported in RS with a hearing loss rate of 62 %.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Conclusively, while MF may be preferable for intracanalicular tumors, RS demonstrated superior hearing preservation for small to medium-sized tumors. This research underlines the significance of stratified outcomes by tumor size, guiding surgical decisions and enhancing patient outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38615371
pii: S0967-5868(24)00145-0
doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2024.04.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-14

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Lucca B Palavani (LB)

Max Planck University Center, Indaiatuba, SP, Brazil.

Sávio Batista (S)

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Faculty of Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Filipi Fim Andreão (FF)

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Faculty of Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: filipiandreao@ufrj.br.

Leonardo de Barros Oliveira (L)

State University of Ponta Grossa, Faculty of Medicine, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil.

Guilherme Melo Silva (GM)

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Faculty of Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Stefan Koester (S)

Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, the United States of America.

João F Barbieri (JF)

Max Planck University Center, Indaiatuba, SP, Brazil.

Raphael Bertani (R)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, SP, Brazil.

Vinicius Trindade Gomes da Silva (VTG)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, SP, Brazil; AC Camargo Cancer Center, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Marcus Acioly (M)

Division of Neurosurgery, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Wellingson S Paiva (WS)

Department of Neurosurgery, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, SP, Brazil.

Erion J De Andrade (EJ)

Division of Neurosurgery, Section of Skull Base Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, the United States of America.

Marcio S Rassi (MS)

Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Santa Casa de São Paulo School of Medical Sciences, SP, Brazil.

Classifications MeSH