J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2020; 81(02): 136-141
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1679898
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Intentional Subtotal Resection of Vestibular Schwannoma: A Reexamination

Ben A. Strickland
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Kristine Ravina
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Robert C. Rennert
2   Department of Neurosurgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States
,
Anna Jackanich
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Ksenia Aaron
3   Department of Otolaryngology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Joshua Bakhsheshian
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Jonathan J. Russin
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Rick A. Friedman
4   Department of Otolaryngology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States
,
Steven L. Giannotta
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

15. Oktober 2018

15. Januar 2019

Publikationsdatum:
01. März 2019 (online)

Abstract

Background Treatment of vestibular schwannomas (VS) remains controversial. Historical surgical series prioritized gross total resections (GTR); however, near total resections (NTR) and intentional subtotal resections (STR) aiming at improving cranial nerve outcomes are becoming more popular.

Objective The main purpose of this article is to assess the tumor control and facial nerve outcomes in VS patients treated with STR or NTR.

Methods VS patients undergoing STR or NTR at our institution between 1984 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, extent of tumor resection, facial nerve injury, tumor recurrence, and need for Gamma Knife radiosurgery were analyzed. Facial nerve outcomes were quantified using House–Brackmann (HB) scores. Tumor regrowth was defined by the San Francisco criteria.

Results Four-hundred fifty-seven VS resections were performed in a 32-year period. Sixty cases met inclusion criteria. The mean (range) follow-up duration was 30.9 (12–103) months. The STR cohort (n = 33) demonstrated regrowth in 12 patients (36.3%) at an average of 23.6 months. The NTR cohort (n = 27) did not experience tumor recurrence. Risk of tumor recurrence was positively correlated with preoperative tumor size (p = 0.002), size of residual tumor (p < 0.001), and STR (p < 0.001). Facial nerve outcomes of HB1–2 were observed in the majority of patients in both cohorts (74.1% NTR, 56% STR), though NTR was associated with a higher likelihood of facial nerve recovery (p = 0.003).

Conclusion GTR remains the gold standard as long as facial nerve outcomes remain acceptable. NTR achieved superior tumor control and higher likelihood of facial nerve recovery compared with STR.

Financial Disclosures

The authors have no financial disclosures.


 
  • References

  • 1 Mahaley Jr MS, Mettlin C, Natarajan N, Laws Jr ER, Peace BB. Analysis of patterns of care of brain tumor patients in the United States: a study of the Brain Tumor Section of the AANS and the CNS and the Commission on Cancer of the ACS. Clin Neurosurg 1990; 36: 347-352
  • 2 Nakatomi H, Jacob JT, Carlson ML. , et al. Long-term risk of recurrence and regrowth after gross-total and subtotal resection of sporadic vestibular schwannoma. J Neurosurg 2017; •••: 1-7 . Doi: 10.3171/2016.11.JNS16498
  • 3 Jacob JT, Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Link MJ. Volumetric analysis of tumor control following subtotal and near-total resection of vestibular schwannoma. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (08) 1877-1882
  • 4 Schwartz MS, Kari E, Strickland BM. , et al. Evaluation of the increased use of partial resection of large vestibular schwannomas: facial nerve outcomes and recurrence/regrowth rates. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (08) 1456-1464
  • 5 Bloch DC, Oghalai JS, Jackler RK, Osofsky M, Pitts LH. The fate of the tumor remnant after less-than-complete acoustic neuroma resection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (01) 104-112
  • 6 Monfared A, Corrales CE, Theodosopoulos PV. , et al. Facial nerve outcome and tumor control rate as a function of degree of resection in treatment of large acoustic neuromas: Preliminary Report of the Acoustic Neuroma Subtotal Resection Study (ANSRS). Neurosurgery 2016; 79 (02) 194-203
  • 7 Carlstrom LP, Copeland III WR, Neff BA, Castner ML, Driscoll CL, Link MJ. Incidence and risk factors of delayed facial palsy after vestibular schwannoma resection. Neurosurgery 2016; 78 (02) 251-255
  • 8 Samii M, Gerganov VM, Samii A. Functional outcome after complete surgical removal of giant vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg 2010; 112 (04) 860-867
  • 9 Starnoni D, Daniel RT, Tuleasca C, George M, Levivier M, Messerer M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the technique of subtotal resection and stereotactic radiosurgery for large vestibular schwannomas: a “nerve-centered” approach. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 44 (03) E4
  • 10 Carlson ML, Habermann EB, Wagie AE. , et al. The changing landscape of vestibular schwannoma management in the United States--a shift toward conservatism. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 153 (03) 440-446
  • 11 Mooney MA, Hendricks B, Sarris CE, Spetzler RF, Almefty KK, Porter RW. Long-term facial nerve outcomes after microsurgical resection of vestibular schwannomas in patients with preoperative facial nerve palsy. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2018; 79 (03) 309-313
  • 12 Anderson DE, Leonetti J, Wind JJ, Cribari D, Fahey K. Resection of large vestibular schwannomas: facial nerve preservation in the context of surgical approach and patient-assessed outcome. J Neurosurg 2005; 102 (04) 643-649
  • 13 Lanman TH, Brackmann DE, Hitselberger WE, Subin B. Report of 190 consecutive cases of large acoustic tumors (vestibular schwannoma) removed via the translabyrinthine approach. J Neurosurg 1999; 90 (04) 617-623
  • 14 Mamikoglu B, Wiet RJ, Esquivel CR. Translabyrinthine approach for the management of large and giant vestibular schwannomas. Otol Neurotol 2002; 23 (02) 224-227
  • 15 Chen Z, Prasad SC, Di Lella F. , et al. The behavior of residual tumors and facial nerve outcomes after incomplete excision of vestibular schwannomas. J Neurosurg 2014; 120 (06) 1278-1287
  • 16 Syed MI, Wolf A, Ilan O. , et al. The behaviour of residual tumour after the intentional incomplete excision of a vestibular schwannoma: is it such a bad thing to leave some behind?. Clin Otolaryngol 2017; 42 (01) 92-97
  • 17 Vakilian S, Souhami L, Melançon D, Zeitouni A. Volumetric measurement of vestibular schwannoma tumour growth following partial resection: predictors for recurrence. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2012; 73 (02) 117-120
  • 18 van de Langenberg R, Hanssens PE, van Overbeeke JJ. , et al. Management of large vestibular schwannoma. Part I. Planned subtotal resection followed by Gamma Knife surgery: radiological and clinical aspects. J Neurosurg 2011; 115 (05) 875-884
  • 19 Radwan H, Eisenberg MB, Sandberg Knisely JP, Ghaly MM, Schulder M. Outcomes in patients with vestibular schwannoma after subtotal resection and adjuvant radiosurgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2016; 94 (04) 216-224
  • 20 Link MJ, Lund-Johansen M, Lohse CM. , et al. Quality of life in patients with vestibular schwannomas following gross total or less than gross total microsurgical resection: should we be taking the entire tumor out?. Neurosurgery 2018; 82 (04) 541-547
  • 21 Copeland WR, Carlson ML, Neff BA, Driscoll CLW, Link MJ. Management of residual tumor after limited subtotal resection of large vestibular schwannomas: lessons learned and rationale for specialized care. World Neurosurg 2017; 105: 737-744