Management of Vestibular Schwannoma with Normal Hearing.

INTRODUCTION: This work aimed to study the management of vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients with normal hearing (NH). METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken in a Quaternary referral center for skull base pathologies. Among 4,000 VS patients 162 met our strict audiological criteria for NH. These patients were divided into 2 management groups, wait and scan (W&S) (45/162, 25%) and operated patients (123/162, 75%), and 6 patients were included in both groups. RESULTS: Our management strategy achieved the goals for treatment of VS. First goal, all tumors were completely removed except for 2 intentional residuals. Second goal, facial nerve (FN) function preservation (House Brackmann I, II, and III) was 95.9%. Third goal, possible hearing preservation (HP) attempts occurred in (50/122) (40.9%) with an HP rate in 44% of the patients. Additionally, there were only 2 cases of postoperative complications with no CSF leakage. The prospect of HP in NH patients did not differ with respect to tumor size. However, patients with normal preoperative ABR seemed to have better chances of HP and good FN function and vice versa. HP rate was superior for the MCFA as opposed to the RS + RLA. W&S group demonstrated hearing stability in 88.9% of the patients and FN function stability of HB I in 100% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection is a reasonable and definitive management option for VS with NH. Nevertheless, choosing to manage cases with observation remains an appropriate management option for NH patients. ABR might be considered as an adjuvant tool indicating better prognosis for HP.

Audiological Evaluation of Vestibular Schwannoma Patients with Normal Hearing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the audiological aspects of vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients with normal hearing. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Quaternary referral center for skull base pathologies. PATIENTS: The records on 4,000 patients who had been diagnosed with VS between 1986 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients included in the study were the ones who complied with the strict audiological normality criteria, as follows: a pure tone hearing threshold (at the 6-octave-spaced frequencies from 250 to 8,000 Hz) ≤25 dBHL; a word recognition score >90%; and interaural differences ≤10 dB at each frequency. INTERVENTIONS: Auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing and radiological imaging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of normal objective hearing among VS patients, and the diagnostic utility of the ABR and the effect of tumor size and site on the response. RESULTS: The incidence of normal hearing among VS patients was 4.2%. Tinnitus and vertigo were the most common symptoms across tumor grades; 5.6% of the tumors were large and giant tumors. The ABR yielded a sensitivity of 73.6%, with a false negative rate of 26.3% using a cutoff point of 0.2 ms for interaural latency differences. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of VS should not be based on audiometric thresholds alone. Alarming signs of VS should be clear to the physician in order not to miss or delay the diagnosis of the disease. The ABR is useful in the diagnosis of VS, but normal results do not exclude the occurrence of the disease in patients with normal hearing.