Hearing Preservation and Functional Outcomes After Resection of Epidermoid Lesions of the Cerebellopontine Angle With High Hearing Risk

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: To assess a decade of experience of treating patients with high hearing risk cerebellopontine angle (CPA) epidermoid lesions and examine factors influencing postoperative outcomes, particularly hearing preservation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Single tertiary-referral center. PATIENTS: Adults with CPA epidermoid lesions who presented with hearing loss or evidence of lesion involving vestibulocochlear nerve. INTERVENTIONS: The studied intervention was microsurgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included extent of resection, hearing preservation rate for patients with postoperative audiograms, and disease progression. RESULTS: Twenty-three adults with an average tumor volume of 15.63 ± 16.2 cm3 were included. Five lesions (22%) involved the full internal auditory canal (IAC), 11 (48%) had partial involvement, and 5 (22%) were IAC sparing. Most patients with IAC involvement (88%) had circumferential invasion of the canal. Patients underwent either a retrosigmoid (18, 79%) or combined retrolabyrinthine transpetrosal approach (5, 22%), and gross total resection was achieved in most cases (13, 57%). Of 12 patients with postoperative audiograms, 10 (83%) had preoperative hearing preserved. There was no statistically significant change in hearing scores with treatment based on preoperative extent of IAC involvement. Ten patients (43%) had residual lesions postoperatively, and 6 exhibited progression. One patient ultimately required reoperation 6 years after initial surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative hearing was preserved in the majority of the patients who underwent resection of CPA epidermoids via a retrosigmoid or transpetrosal approach. CPA epidermoids often invaded the IAC; however, degree of invasion was not associated with hearing outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.