Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T03:36:56.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modified translabyrinthine approach and hearing preservation: imaging evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2007

G Magliulo ,
A Stasolla ,
D Parrotto  and
M Marini
G Magliulo*
Affiliation:
G Ferreri Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Audiology and Phoniatrics, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
A Stasolla
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, La Sapienza University of Rome, RomeItaly.
D Parrotto
Affiliation:
G Ferreri Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Audiology and Phoniatrics, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
M Marini
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, La Sapienza University of Rome, RomeItaly.
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Giuseppe Magliulo, Via Gregorio VII n 80, 00165 Rome, Italy. Fax: 6 49976817 E-mail: giuseppemagliuloorl@yahoo.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

To establish if the computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearances of the vestibule, after the removal of vestibular schwannoma by a modified translabyrinthine approach, correlate with a successful outcome, defined as hearing preservation.

Materials and methods:

Our study group consisted of 16 patients with vestibular schwannoma. All patients' pre-operative hearing was graded as class one or two according to the Gardner–Robertson scale. On MRI scans, the schwannoma, including the intracanalicular segment, were less than 2 cm in size in all the patients. The intracanalicular portion involved the fundus of the internal auditory canal in seven patients. In the remaining nine patients, the schwannoma had spread to involve two-thirds of the meatus, sparing its lateral third. The state of the labyrinth, in particular the integrity of the vestibule, was evaluated by CT scans and MRI prior to and following surgery.

Results:

The schwannoma was completely removed in all patients. None showed any signs of persistence or tumoral relapse on the post-operative MRI. The final follow up showed that seven patients had maintained their hearing function (i.e. four patients with class one hearing and three with class two). The MRI vestibular signal on the T2-weighted images was well depicted only in patients with hearing preservation. Bony vestibular integrity was observed in the CT scans of all cases with hearing preservation, and also in three cases with failure of hearing preservation.

Conclusion:

Our results confirm that total isolation and maintenance of an anatomically intact vestibule, as depicted by MRI examination, is one of the fundamental factors for successful preservation of hearing function following modified translabyrinthine approach schwannoma removal.

Keywords

Acoustic NeuromaVestibuleOtologic Surgical ProceduresHearing

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 121 , Issue 8 , August 2007 , pp. 736 - 741
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Tong, K, Harnsberger, HR, Swartz, JD. The vestibulocochlear nerve, emphasizing the normal and diseased internal auditory canal and cerebellopontine angle. In: Swartz, JD, Harnsberger, HR, eds. Imaging of the Temporal Bone, 3rd edn. New York, Stuttgart: Thieme, 1998;394–472Google Scholar
2Casselman, JW. Imaging of the inner ear. Riv Neuroradiol 1997;10 (suppl 1):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Domb, GH, Chole, RA. Anatomical studies of the posterior petrous apex with regard to hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma removal. Part I. Laryngoscope 1980;90:1769–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Sanna, M, Zini, C, Mazzoni, A, Gandolfi, A, Pareschi, R, Psaninisi, E et al. Hearing preservation in acoustic neuroma surgery: middle fossa versus suboccipital approach. Am J Otol 1987;8:500–6Google ScholarPubMed
5Silverstein, H, Norrell, H, Smouha, E, Haberkamp, T. The singular canal: a valuable landmark in surgery of the internal auditory canal. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98:138–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Shelton, C, Brackmann, DE, House, WF, Hitselberger, WE. Middle fossa acoustic tumor surgery: results in 106 cases. Laryngoscope 1989;99:405–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Kanzaki, J, Ogawa, K, Yamamoto, M, Ikeda, T, Shiobara, R, Toya, S. Results of acoustic neuroma surgery by extended middle cranial fossa approach. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 1991;487:17–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Thedinger, BS, Whittaker, CK, Luetje, CM. Recurrent acoustic tumor after a suboccipital removal. Neurosurgery 1991;29:681–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Roberson, JB, Brackmann, DE, Hitselberger, WE. Acoustic neuroma recurrence after suboccipital resection: management with translabyrinthine resection. Am J Otol 1996;17:307–11Google ScholarPubMed
10McKennan, KX. Endoscopy of the internal auditory canal during hearing conservation tumor surgery. Am J Otol 1993;14:259–62Google ScholarPubMed
11Brors, D, Schäfers, M, Bodmer, D, Draf, W, Kahle, G, Schick, B. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging findings after transtemporal and translabyrinthine vestibular schwannoma resection. Laryngoscope 2003;113:420–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Larson, T. Understanding the posttreatment imaging appearance of the internal auditory canal and cerebellopontine angle. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2003;24:133–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13House, WF, Gardner, G, Hughes, RL. Middle cranial fossa approach to acoustic tumor surgery. Arch Otolaryngol 1968;88:631–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Tos, M, Thomsen, J. Translabyrinthine surgery of acoustic neurinoma. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 1979;360:45–7Google ScholarPubMed
15Helms, J, Hohmann, D, Abdel-Azyz, Y. Otosurgical aspects in diagnostics and therapy of acoustica neurinomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1988;92:47–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Driscoll, CL, Jackler, RK, Pitts, LH, Banthia, V. Is the entire fundus of the internal auditory canal visible during the middle fossa approach for acoustic neuroma? Am J Otol 2000;21:382–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17McElveen, JT, Wilkins, RH, Erwin, AC, Wolford, RD. Modifyng the translabyrinthine approach to preserve hearing during acoustic tumour surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1991;105:34–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Hirsch, BE, Cass, SP, Sekhar, LN, Wright, DC. Translabyrinthine approach to skull base tumors with hearing preservation. Am J Otol 1993;14:533–43Google ScholarPubMed
19Magliulo, G, Parrotto, D, Stasolla, A, Marini, M. Modified translabyrinthine approach and hearing preservation. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1133–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Gardner, G, Robertson, JH. Hearing preservation in unilateral acoustic neuroma surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1988;97:55–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Casselman, JW, Kuhweide, R, Deimling, M, Ampe, W, Dehaene, I, Meeus, L. Constructive interference in steady state (CISS)-3DFT MR imaging of the inner ear and cerebellopontine angle. Am J Neuroradiol 1993;14:47–57Google Scholar