Retrosigmoid Approach for Acoustic Tumor Removal

A systematic review about the position-related complications of acoustic neuroma surgery via suboccipital retrosigmoid approach: Sitting versus lateral

This systematic review wasdesigned to compare the complications of acoustic neuroma surgery via the suboccipital retrosigmoid approach in the sitting versus lateral positions. Searches for randomized trials and observational studies about the complications of acoustic neuroma surgery were performed in five medical databases (though October 2015) including PubMed, MEDLINE (In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO. Primary outcomes in this study were venous air emboli, neuropsychological defects, CSF leak, facial and abducens nerves palsy, postoperative deafness, hydrocephalus and mortality. Secondary outcomes were total tumor removal, facial and cochlear nerves preservation and ataxia. 843 abstracts and titles were reviewed and 10 studies (two non-randomized comparative studies and 8 non-comparative case series) were included for data extraction. Because of the heterogeneity of the studies, small number of participants and methodological shortcomings, findings were evaluated qualitatively. No impressive advantage was found in surgical or neurological outcomes for use of the sitting or lateral positions in patients with acoustic neuroma surgery. According to the available evidence, it seems that both sitting and lateral positions can be used with an equivalent safety for acoustic neuroma surgery via the retrosigmoid suboccipital approach. There seems a clear need for comparative studies to compare harms and other outcomes for these two positions.

Exposing the Fundus of the Internal Acoustic Meatus without Entering the Labyrinth Using a Retrosigmoid Approach: Is It Possible?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of performing a labyrinth-sparing neuronavigation-assisted retrosigmoid approach to the fundus of the internal acoustic meatus (IAM) and to describe the anatomy of the structures embedded in the posterior meatal wall.

METHODS

Ten surgical dissections were performed bilaterally on 5 fresh cadavers. Cadavers were subjected to preoperative computed tomography scans and spatial coordinates of inner ear structures were recorded. A retrosigmoid craniectomy was performed. The IAM was drilled towards the fundus until no more than 1 mm of bone covered the labyrinthine structures. Specimens underwent a new computed tomography scan to verify the length of opened IAM and the status of the labyrinth. We then opened the labyrinthine structures and recorded their coordinates using navigation. These were compared with the radiologic coordinates to verify the neuronavigation accuracy.

RESULTS

In 9 sides, the IAM was opened to the fundus without injuring the labyrinth; in 1 side, the vestibule was opened. The mean residual bone on the fundus was 0.97 mm. The average length of the accessible IAM was 88.95%. The best accuracy of the navigation was for the identification of the common crus, with a mean value of 0.73 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This surgical technique could facilitate the opening of the IAM with preservation of inner ear structures. We opened a mean of 88.95% of the IAM without entering the labyrinthine structures in 90% of cases. These results confirm the feasibility of the retrosigmoid approach for the exposure of the IAM fundus with preservation of labyrinthine structures.

Surgery for vestibular schwannomas: a systematic review of complications by approach

Object

Various studies report outcomes of vestibular schwannoma (VS) surgery, but few studies have compared outcomes across the various approaches. The authors conducted a systematic review of the available data on VS surgery, comparing the different approaches and their associated complications.

Methods

MEDLINE searches were conducted to collect studies that reported information on patients undergoing VS surgery. The authors set inclusion criteria for such studies, including the availability of follow-up data for at least 3 months, inclusion of preoperative and postoperative audiometric data, intraoperative monitoring, and reporting of results using established and standardized metrics. Data were collected on hearing loss, facial nerve dysfunction, persistent postoperative headache, CSF leak, operative mortality, residual tumor, tumor recurrence, cranial nerve (CN) dysfunction involving nerves other than CN VII or VIII, and other neurological complications. The authors reviewed data from 35 studies pertaining to 5064 patients who had undergone VS surgery.

Results

The analyses for hearing loss and facial nerve dysfunction were stratified into the following tumor categories: intracanalicular (IC), size (extrameatal diameter) < 1.5 cm, size 1.5–3.0 cm, and size > 3.0 cm. The middle cranial fossa approach was found to be superior to the retrosigmoid approach for hearing preservation in patients with tumors < 1.5 cm (hearing loss in 43.6% vs 64.3%, p < 0.001). All other size categories showed no significant difference between middle cranial fossa and retrosigmoid approaches with respect to hearing loss. The retrosigmoid approach was associated with significantly less facial nerve dysfunction in patients with IC tumors than the middle cranial fossa method was; however, neither differed significantly from the translabyrinthine corridor (4%, 16.7%, 0%, respectively, p < 0.001). The middle cranial fossa approach differed significantly from the translabyrinthine approach for patients with tumors < 1.5 cm, whereas neither differed from the retrosigmoid approach (3.3%, 11.5%, and 7.2%, respectively, p = 0.001). The retrosigmoid approach involved less facial nerve dysfunction than the middle cranial fossa or translabyrinthine approaches for tumors 1.5–3.0 cm (6.1%, 17.3%, and 15.8%, respectively; p < 0.001). The retrosigmoid approach was also superior to the translabyrinthine approach for tumors > 3.0 cm (30.2% vs 42.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). Postoperative headache was significantly more likely after the retrosigmoid approach than after the translabyrinthine approach, but neither differed significantly from the middle cranial fossa approach (17.3%, 0%, and 8%, respectively; p < 0.001). The incidence of CSF leak was significantly greater after the retrosigmoid approach than after either the middle cranial fossa or translabyrinthine approaches (10.3%, 5.3%, 7.1%; p = 0.001). The incidences of residual tumor, mortality, major non-CN complications, residual tumor, tumor recurrence, and dysfunction of other cranial nerves were not significantly different across the approaches.

Conclusions

The middle cranial fossa approach seems safest for hearing preservation in patients with smaller tumors. Based on the data, the retrosigmoid approach seems to be the most versatile corridor for facial nerve preservation for most tumor sizes, but it is associated with a higher risk of postoperative pain and CSF fistula. The translabyrinthine approach is associated with complete hearing loss but may be useful for patients with large tumors and poor preoperative hearing.

Analysis of hearing preservation and facial nerve function for patients undergoing vestibular schwannoma surgery: the middle cranial fossa approach versus the retrosigmoid approach--personal experience and literature review

OBJECTIVE

To compare hearing preservation and facial nerve function outcomes in patients undergoing vestibular schwannoma surgery performed using either the middle cranial fossa approach (MCFA) or the retrosigmoid approach (RSA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the medical records of patients diagnosed with vestibular schwannoma who underwent surgical tumor removal in a single reference center via the MCFA or the RSA between January 1988 and December 2008 was conducted.

RESULTS

During this period, 90 patients underwent surgery via the MCFA while 86 patients received surgical treatment via the RSA. Of the patients subjected to the MCFA, 80.7% were characterized by a House-Brackmann (HB) grade I or II outcome, whereas 96.5% of patients undergoing the RSA were characterized by a HB grade I or II outcome (p = 0.001). This difference appeared only for extrameatal tumors when we compared size-matched tumors (58.3% MCFA vs. 98% RSA; p = 0.0006). There was no statistically significant difference in the hearing outcomes upon consideration of hearing preservation as characterized by the modified Sanna classification system involving classes A and B (18.9% MCFA vs. 10.6% RSA; p = 0.122).

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant difference in hearing preservation was identified when comparing tumors operated upon via the MCFA versus the RSA. However, our results indicate that a higher risk of facial nerve function impairment exists if the surgery is performed via the MCFA under circumstances where the tumor extends to the cerebellopontine angle.

Differences in clinical results after LINAC-based single-dose radiosurgery versus fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with vestibular schwannomas

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS) treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) vs. those treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study is based on an analysis of 200 patients with 202 VSs treated with FSRT (n = 172) or SRS (n = 30). Patients with tumor progression and/or progression of clinical symptoms were selected for treatment. In 165 out of 202 VSs (82%), RT was performed as the primary treatment for VS, and for 37 VSs (18%), RT was conducted for tumor progression after neurosurgical intervention. For patients receiving FSRT, a median total dose of 57.6 Gy was prescribed, with a median fractionation of 5 x 1.8 Gy per week. For patients who underwent SRS, a median single dose of 13 Gy was prescribed to the 80% isodose.

RESULTS

FSRT and SRS were well tolerated. Median follow-up time was 75 months. Local control was not statistically different for both groups. The probability of maintaining the pretreatment hearing level after SRS with doses of < or =13 Gy was comparable to that of FSRT. The radiation dose for the SRS group (< or =13 Gy vs. >13 Gy) significantly influenced hearing preservation rates (p = 0.03). In the group of patients treated with SRS doses of < or =13 Gy, cranial nerve toxicity was comparable to that of the FSRT group.

CONCLUSIONS

FSRT and SRS are both safe and effective alternatives for the treatment of VS. Local control rates are comparable in both groups. SRS with doses of < or =13 Gy is a safe alternative to FSRT. While FSRT can be applied safely for the treatment of VSs of all sizes, SRS should be reserved for smaller lesions.