ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Advancements in microsurgical technique and technology continue to improve outcomes in patients with skull base tumor. The primary cranial nerve eight monitoring systems used in hearing preservation surgery for vestibular schwannomas (VSs) are direct cranial nerve eight monitoring (DCNEM) and auditory brainstem response (ABR), although current guidelines are unable to definitively recommend one over the other due to limited literature on the topic. Thus, further research is needed to determine the utility of DCNEM and ABR. The authors performed a retrospective cohort study and created an interactive model that compares hearing preservation outcomes based on tumor size in patients receiving ABR+DCNEM and ABR-only monitoring. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients received ABR+DCNEM and 72 patients received ABR-only monitoring during VS hearing preservation surgery at a single tertiary academic medical center between January 2008 and November 2022. Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients with a preoperative American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) hearing classification of A or B. Tumor size was measured as the maximal medial to lateral length, including the internal auditory canal component. RESULTS: Overall hearing preservation (word recognition score [WRS] > 0%) was achieved in 31 patients with ABR-only monitoring (43.1%) and in 18 patients with ABR+DCNEM (64.3%). Serviceable hearing preservation (AAO-HNS class A or B) was attained in 19 patients with ABR-only monitoring (26.4%) and in 11 patients with ABR+DCNEM (39.3%). There was no difference in overall hearing preservation between the two groups (p = 0.13). Change in tumor size was not associated with the odds of serviceable hearing preservation for the ABR-only group (p = 0.89); however, for ABR+DCNEM, there was some indication of an interaction between tumor size and the association of ABR+DCNEM versus ABR-only monitoring, with the odds of serviceable hearing preservation at p = 0.089. Furthermore, with ABR+DCNEM, every 0.5-cm increase in tumor size was associated with a decreased odds of serviceable hearing preservation on multivariable analysis (p = 0.05). For both overall and serviceable hearing preservation, a worse preoperative AAO-HNS classification was associated with a decreased odds of preservation (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.97, p = 0.042; OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.053-0.55, p = 0.0031, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The result of this interactive model study proposes that there may be a higher chance of hearing preservation when using ABR+DCNEM rather than ABR alone for smaller tumors, with that relationship reversing as tumor size increases.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Historically, eventual loss of cochlear nerve function has limited patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) to auditory brainstem implants (ABI), which in general are less effective than modern cochlear implants (CI). Our objective is to evaluate hearing outcomes following ipsilateral cochlear implantation in patients with NF2 and irradiated vestibular schwannomas (VS), and sporadic VS that have been irradiated or observed. METHODS: Multi-center retrospective analysis of ipsilateral cochlear implantation in the presence of observed and irradiated VS. MESH search in NCBI PubMed database between 1992 and 2019 for reported cases of cochlear implantation with unresected vestibular schwannoma. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent ipsilateral cochlear implantation in the presence of observed or irradiated vestibular schwannomas. Four patients had sporadic tumors with severe-profound contralateral hearing loss caused by presbycusis/hereditary sensorineural hearing loss, and three patients with NF2 lost contralateral hearing after prior surgical resection. Prior to implantation, one VS was observed without growth for a period of 7 years and the others were treated with radiotherapy. Mean post-operative sentence score was 63.9% (range 48-91) at an average of 28 (range 2-84) months follow up. All patients in this cohort obtained open set speech perception. While analysis of the literature is limited by heterogenous data reporting, 85% of implants with observed schwannomas achieved some open set perception, and 67% of patients previously radiated schwannomas. Furthermore, blending literature outcomes for post implantation sentence testing in quiet without lip-reading show 59.0 ± 35% for patients with CI and observed tumors and 55.7 ± 35% for patients with radiated tumors, with both groups ranging 0 to 100%. CONCLUSION: This retrospective series and literature review highlight that hearing outcomes with CI for VS patients are superior to those achieved with ABI. However, important considerations including imaging, delayed hearing loss, and observation time cannot be ignored in this population.
