Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 161, Issue 1, pp 69–78 | Cite as

Hearing preservation after removal of small vestibular schwannomas by retrosigmoid approach: comparison of two different ABR neuromonitoring techniques

  • Luciano Mastronardi
  • Ettore Di ScipioEmail author
  • Guglielmo Cacciotti
  • Raffaelino Roperto
  • Carlo Giacobbo Scavo
Original Article - Tumor - Schwannoma
  • 63 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Tumor – Schwannoma

Abstract

Background and objective

Goals of small vestibular schwannoma (VS) microneurosurgery are as follows: radical resection, facial nerve (FN) preservation, and hearing preservation (HP). Microsurgical advances make HP possible in many patients with preoperative socially useful hearing (SUH). We evaluated postoperative HP in VS with maximum diameter < 2 cm monitored with two different auditory brainstem response (ABR) techniques.

Materials and methods

Twenty-eight consecutive non-randomized patients with SUH suffering from small VS underwent keyhole microneurosurgery by retrosigmoid (RS) approach. Selection criteria are as follows: speech discrimination > 50%, pure tone audiogram < 50 dB loss (50/50 criterion; AAO-HNS classes A–B), maximum diameter < 2 cm. HP was attempted with intraoperative ABR, evoked by classical Click (16 cases, group 1) and LS-CE-Chirp® stimulus (12, group 2).

Results

Mean age was 47.5 years (16–75); average maximum diameter was 1.35 cm (0.5–1.9 mm). Total and nearly total resection (> 95%) was obtained in all, as confirmed by 24–48-h postoperative enhanced MRI. Mortality and major morbidity were 0. In all cases, FN was preserved; in 3, incomplete deficit recovered within few weeks. Socially useful HP (pre- and postoperatively) was 64.3% (18 of 28): 56.25% group 1 and 75% group 2 (p = NS). Postoperative ipsilateral deafness was observed in 5 cases of group 1 (p < 0.0001). Preoperative tinnitus had negative impact on HP (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Microsurgery can cure small growing VS with SUH. Our limited experience confirms that keyhole RS removal assisted by intraoperative ABR monitoring leads to valuable rates of SUH. LS-CE-Chirp–evoked ABRs allow a safe, effective, and clear neurophysiological feedback and are faster and, thus, more useful than the Click-ABR.

Keywords

ABR LS-CE-Chirp Hearing preservation Facial nerve preservation Microsurgery Retrosigmoid approach Vestibular schwannoma 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (name of institute/committee) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation I (1995) Committee on hearing and equilibrium guidelines for the evaluation of hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma (vestibular schwannoma). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:179–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bakkouri WE, Kania RE, Guichard JP et al (2009) Conservative management of 386 cases of unilateral vestibular schwannoma: tumor growth and consequences for treatment Clinical article. J Neurosurg 110:662–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brackmann DE, Owens RM, Friedman RA et al (2000) Prognostic factors for hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 21:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Scipio E, Mastronardi L (2015) CE-Chirp® ABR in cerebellopontine angle surgery neuromonitoring: technical assessment in four cases. Neurosurg Rev 38:381–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dornhoffer JL, Helms J, Hohmann DH (1995) Hearing preservation in acoustic tumor surgery: results and prognostic factors. Laryngoscope 105:184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elberling C, Callo J, Don M (2010) Evaluating auditory brainstem responses to different chirp stimuli at three levels of stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 128:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elliott A, Hebb AL, Walling S et al (2015) Hearing preservation in vestibular schwannoma management. Am J Otolaryngol 36:526–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gardner G, Robertson JH (1988) Hearing preservation in unilateral acoustic neuroma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 97:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golfinos JG, Hill TC, Rokosh R et al (2016) A matched cohort comparison of clinical outcomes following microsurgical resection or stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with small- and medium-sized33, vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg 125:1472–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    He YB, Yu CJ, Ji HM et al (2016) Significance of vestibular testing on distinguishing the nerve of origin for vestibular schwannoma and predicting the preservation of hearing. Chin Med J 129:799–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    House JW, Brackmann DE (1985) Facial nerve grading system. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 93:146–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joo BE, Park SK, Cho KR et al (2016) Real-time intraoperative monitoring of brainstem auditory evoked potentials during microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm. J Neurosurg 125:1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koh ES, Millar BA, Menard C et al (2007) Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for acoustic neuroma: single-institution experience at the Princess Margaret hospital. Cancer 109:1203–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lobato-Polo J, Kondziolka D, Zorro O et al (2009) Gamma knife radiosurgery in younger patients with vestibular schwannomas. Neurosurgery 65:294–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mastronardi L, Cacciotti G, Di Scipio E et al (2016) Safety and usefulness of flexible hand-held laser fibers in microsurgical removal of acoustic neuromas (vestibular schwannomas). Clin Neurol Neurosurg 145:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mastronardi L, Cacciotti G, Roperto R et al (2016) Position and course of facial nerve and postoperative facial nerve results in vestibular schwannoma microsurgery. World Neurosurg 94:174–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mendelsohn D, Westerberg BD, Dong C et al (2016) Clinical and radiographic factors predicting hearing preservation rates in large vestibular schwannomas. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 77:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mousavi SH, Niranjan A, Akpinar B et al (2016) Hearing subclassification may predict long-term auditory outcomes after radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma patients with good hearing. J Neurosurg 125:845–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niranjan A, Mathieu D, Flickinger JC et al (2008) Hearing preservation after intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 63:1054–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roessler K, Krawagna M, Bischoff B et al (2016) Improved postoperative facial nerve and hearing function in retrosigmoid vestibular schwannoma surgery significantly associated with semisitting position. World Neurosurg 87:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowe JG, Radatz MW, Walton L et al (2003) Gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery for unilateral acoustic neuromas. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74:1536–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rueß D, Pöhlmann L, Grau S et al (2017) Long-term follow-up after stereotactic radiosurgery of intracanalicular acoustic neurinoma. Radiat Oncol 12:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sameshima T Mastronardi L, Friedman AH, et al (eds) (2007). Microanatomy and dissection of temporal bone for surgery of acoustic neuroma and petroclival meningioma. Second Edition. Raleigh (NC, USA) AF Neurovideo, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sameshima T, Fukushima T, McElveen JT Jr et al (2010) Critical assessment of operative approaches for hearing preservation in small acoustic neuroma surgery: retrosigmoid vs middle fossa. Neurosurgery 67:640–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Samii M, Matthies C (1997) Management of 1000 vestibular schwannomas (acoustic neuromas): surgical management and results with an emphasis on complications and how to avoid them. Neurosurgery 40:11–23Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Samii M (1989) Tumors of the internal auditory canal and cerebellopontine angle: I- acoustic neuroma. In: Samii M, Draf W (eds) Surgery of the skull base: an interdisciplinary approach. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Samii M, Gerganov V, Samii A (2006) Improved preservation of hearing and facial nerve function in vestibular schwannoma surgery via the retrosigmoid approach in a series of 200 patients. J Neurosurg 105:527–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Satar B, Yetiser S, Özkaptan Y (2003) Impact of tumor size on hearing outcome and facial function with the middle fossa approach for acoustic neuroma: a meta-analytic study. Acta Otolaryngol 123:499–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheller C, Wienke A, Tatagiba M et al (2016) Stability of hearing preservation and regeneration capacity of the cochlear nerve following vestibular schwannoma surgery via a retrosigmoid approach. J Neurosurg 125:1277–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sughrue ME, Yang I, Aranda D et al (2010) The natural history of untreated sporadic vestibular schwannomas: a comprehensive review of hearing outcomes Clinical article. J Neurosurg 112:163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tamura M, Carron R, Yomo S et al (2009) Hearing preservation after gamma knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas presenting with high-level hearing. Neurosurgery 64:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tonn JC, Schlake HP, Goldbrunner R et al (2000) Acoustic neuroma surgery as an interdisciplinary approach: a neurosurgical series of 508 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 69:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wanibuchi M, Fukushima T, Friedman AH et al (2014) Hearing preservation surgery for vestibular schwannomas via the retrosigmoid transmeatal approach: surgical tips. Neurosurg Rev 37:431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Watanabe S, Yamamoto M, Kawabe T et al (2016) Stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: average 10-year follow-up results focusing on long-term hearing preservation. J Neurosurg 125:64–72Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yamakami I, Uchino Y, Kobayashi E et al (2003) Conservative management, gamma-knife radiosurgery, and microsurgery for acoustic neurinomas: a systematic review of outcome and risk of three therapeutic options. Neurol Res 25:682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yamakami I, Ito S, Higuchi Y (2014) Retrosigmoid removal of small acoustic neuroma: curative tumor removal with preservation of function. J Neurosurg 121:554–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yamakami I, Yoshinori H, Saeki N et al (2009) Hearing preservation and intraoperative auditory brainstem response and cochlear nerve compound action potential monitoring in the removal of small acoustic neurinoma via the retrosigmoid approach. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 80:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical Specialties, Division of Neurosurgery and Unit of NeurophysiopathologySan Filippo Neri Hospital/ASLRoma1RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations