Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:19:21.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors affecting final facial nerve outcome following vestibular schwannoma surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2014

D A Moffat*
Affiliation:
Neuro-otology and Skull Base Surgery Department, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
R A Parker
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Medical Statistics, University of Cambridge, UK
D G Hardy
Affiliation:
Neurosurgery Department, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
R Macfarlane
Affiliation:
Neurosurgery Department, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr D A Moffat, Department of Neuro-otology and Skull Base Surgery, Cambridge University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Addenbrookes Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK Fax: +44 1223 364114, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine factors affecting facial nerve outcome of vestibular schwannoma surgery.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study comprised 652 patients. The outcome measure was House–Brackmann classification at two years post-operatively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to determine the factors affecting facial nerve outcome. The incidence rates of hemifacial spasm, metallic taste and crocodile tear syndrome were recorded.

Results:

For tumours less than 1.5 cm, 95 per cent of outcomes were normal, 100 per cent were satisfactory (House–Brackmann grades I–III) and 0 per cent were unsatisfactory (grades IV–VI). For tumours 1.5–2.4 cm, 83 per cent of outcomes were normal, 99 per cent were satisfactory and 1 per cent were unsatisfactory. For tumours 2.5–3.4 cm, 68 per cent of outcomes were normal, 96 per cent were satisfactory and 4 per cent were unsatisfactory. For tumours 3.5–4.4 cm, 52 per cent of outcomes were normal, 80 per cent were satisfactory and 20 per cent were unsatisfactory. For tumours larger than 4.4 cm, 50 per cent of outcomes were normal, 72 per cent were satisfactory and 28 per cent were unsatisfactory.

Conclusion:

Tumour size and operation year were significant predictors of facial nerve outcome. The surgical learning curve was steepest for the first 50 patients.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented Orally at the Sixth International Conference on Acoustic Neuroma, 28–30 June 2011, Los Angeles, California, USA.

References

1Cairns, H. Acoustic neurinoma of right cerebello-pontine angle. Complete removal. Spontaneous recovery from post-operative facial palsy. Proc R Soc Med 1931;25:3540Google Scholar
2McKissock, W. Acoustic tumours. Proc R Soc Med 1965;58:1078–9Google Scholar
3House, WF. Transtemporal bone microsurgical removal of acoustic neuromas: report of cases. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1964;80:731–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Hardy, DG, Macfarlane, R, Baguley, DM, Moffat, DA. Surgery for acoustic neurinoma. An analysis of 100 translabyrinthine operations. J Neurosurg 1989;71:799804Google Scholar
5Moffat, DA, Croxson, GR, Baguley, DM, Hardy, DG. Facial nerve recovery after acoustic neuroma removal. J Laryngol Otol 1989;103:169–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Hardy, DG, Macfarlane, R, Baguley, DM, Moffat, DA. Facial nerve recovery following acoustic neuroma surgery. Br J Neurosurg 1989;3:675–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Kartush, JM, Lundy, LB. Facial nerve outcome in acoustic neuroma surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1992;25:623–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Lalwani, AK, Butt, FY, Jackler, RK, Pitts, LH, Yingling, CD. Facial nerve outcome after acoustic neuroma surgery: a study from the era of cranial nerve monitoring. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;111:561–70Google Scholar
9Fenton, JE, Fagan, PA. Facial nerve outcome after acoustic neuroma surgery. Surg Neurol 1995;44:95–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Morikawa, M, Tamaki, N, Nagashima, T, Motooka, Y. Long-term results of facial nerve function after acoustic neuroma surgery--clinical benefit of intraoperative facial nerve monitoring. Kobe J Med Sci 2000;46:113–24Google ScholarPubMed
11Arts, HA, Telian, SA, El-Kashlan, H, Thompson, BG. Hearing preservation and facial nerve outcomes in vestibular schwannoma surgery: results using the middle cranial fossa approach. Otol Neurotol 2006;27:234–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Brackmann, DE, Cullen, RD, Fisher, LM. Facial nerve function after translabyrinthine vestibular schwannoma surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:773–7Google Scholar
13Irving, RM, Viani, L, Hardy, DG, Baguley, DM, Moffat, DA. Nervus intermedius function after vestibular schwannoma removal: clinical features and pathophysiological mechanisms. Laryngoscope 1995;105:809–13Google Scholar
14Tos, M, Thomsen, J. Proposal for reporting size of vestibular schwannoma. In: Kanzaki, J, Tos, M, Sanna, M, Moffat, DA, Kunihiro, T, Inoue, Y, eds. Acoustic Neuroma: Consensus on Systems for Reporting Results, Keio University International Symposia for Life Sciences and Medicine. Part 1. Tumor size. Tokyo: Springer, 2003;10:37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15House, JW, Brackmann, DE. Facial nerve grading system. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1985;93:146–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Gardner, G, Robertson, JH. Facial nerve function in cerebellopontine angle tumour surgery. Am J Otol 1985;Nov suppl:74–9Google Scholar
17King, TT, Morrison, AW. Translabyrinthine and transtentorial removal of acoustic nerve tumours. J Neurosurg 1980;52:210–16Google Scholar
18Morgan, A, Disani, F, Fischer, G. Facial Nerve. New York: Masson Publishing USA, 1985Google Scholar
19Bentivoglio, P, Cheeseman, AD, Symon, L. Surgical management of acoustic neuromas during the last five years. Part II: Results for facial and cochlear nerve function. Surg Neurol 1988;29:205–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Gantz, BJ, Gmuer, AA, Holliday, M. Electroneurographic evaluation of the facial nerve. Method and technical problems. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984;93:394–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Croxson, GR, Moffat, DA, Hardy, DG, Baguley, DM. Role of post-operative electroneuronography in predicting facial nerve recovery after acoustic neuroma removal: a pilot study. J Laryngol Otol 1989;103:60–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Whittaker, CK, Luetje, CM. Translabyrinthine removal of large acoustic tumors. Am J Otol 1985;Nov suppl:155–60Google Scholar
23Grey, PL, Moffat, DA, Palmer, CR, Hardy, DH, Baguley, DM. Factors which influence the facial nerve outcome in vestibular schwannoma surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 1996;21:409–13Google Scholar
24Arriaga, MA, Luxford, WM, Atkins, JS Jr, Kwartler, JA. Predicting long-term facial nerve outcome after acoustic neuroma surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;108:220–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Nutik, SL. Facial nerve outcome after acoustic neuroma surgery. Surg Neurol 1994;41:2833Google Scholar
26Moffat, DA, Hardy, DG, Grey, PL, Baguley, DM. The operative learning curve and its effect on facial nerve outcome in vestibular schwannoma surgery. Am J Otol 1996;17:643–7Google ScholarPubMed
27Elsmore, AJ, Mendoza, ND. The operative learning curve for vestibular schwannoma excision via the retrosigmoid approach. Br J Neurosurg 2002;16:448–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Nakao, Y, Piccirillo, E, Falcioni, M, Taibah, A, Russo, A, Kobayashi, T et al. Prediction of facial nerve outcome using electromyographic responses in acoustic neuroma surgery. Otol Neurotol 2002;23:93–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Jones, SE, Baguley, DM, Moffat, DA. Are facial nerve outcomes worse following surgery for cystic vestibular schwannoma? Skull Base 2007;17:281–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed