PDF herunterladen
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2019; 80(02): 187-195
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1677491
Invited Review
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Translabyrinthine Excision of Vestibular Schwannoma with Concurrent Cochlear Implantation: Systematic Review

Nicholas J. Thompson
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
,
Brendan P. O'Connell
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
,
Kevin D. Brown
1   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

15. April 2018

05. Dezember 2018

Publikationsdatum:
24. Januar 2019 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Hearing rehabilitation is an important management aspect of patients undergoing excision of vestibular schwannomas. Studies have shown cochlear implantation (CI) is possible at the time of tumor excision via a translabyrinthine approach. Primary objectives of this report are (1) to review prospective studies pertaining to outcomes of concurrent CI and translabyrinthine tumor removal in detail and (2) perform an aggregate analysis of outcomes for case reports and series.

Design Systematic review based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Setting Review of literature using PubMed and Cochrane databases.

Participants Eligibility included patients undergoing translabyrinthine excision of vestibular schwannoma with concurrent CI.

Main Outcome Measures Open-set speech discrimination scores, sound localization, patient-reported outcome measures.

Results Forty-one subjects were identified. Two prospective studies have been performed, which showed improvement in speech localization and patient-reported outcome measures. While the majority of patients achieved open set speech recognition, data pertaining to improvement in speech perception were variable. Approximately 85% of subjects had audibility with their CI. Of those that achieved open-set speech discrimination, 75% could be classified as either intermediate or high performers. The majority of low performers in open-set speech either endorsed subjective benefit or demonstrated improvement compared to preoperative measures. There was a high risk of selection and reporting bias.

Conclusions The majority of patients undergoing translabyrinthine excision of vestibular schwannoma with concurrent CI achieve open set speech perception, with 75% of these patients meeting criteria for being intermediate to high performers. Additional benefits include improved subjective hearing measures, decreased tinnitus, and improved sound localization.

Keywords

cochlear implantation - schwannoma - hearing rehabilitation - translabyrinthine - hearing outcomes - review
 

  • References

  • 1 Frisch CD, Eckel LJ, Lane JI, Neff BA. Intralabyrinthine schwannomas. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2015; 48 (03) 423-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Andersen HT, Schrøder SA, Bonding P. Unilateral deafness after acoustic neuroma surgery: subjective hearing handicap and the effect of the bone-anchored hearing aid. Otol Neurotol 2006; 27 (06) 809-814
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Douglas SA, Yeung P, Daudia A, Gatehouse S, O'Donoghue GM. Spatial hearing disability after acoustic neuroma removal. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (09) 1648-1651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Feuerstein JF. Monaural versus binaural hearing: ease of listening, word recognition, and attentional effort. Ear Hear 1992; 13 (02) 80-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Corbin NE, Buss E, Leibold LJ. Spatial release from masking in children: effects of simulated unilateral hearing loss. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (02) 223-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Limb CF, Francis HW, Niparko JK. Cochlear implantation: results, outcomes, rehabilitation, and education. In: Flint P. ed, Cummings Otolaryngology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2015: 2455-2471
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Hansen MR, Gantz BJ, Dunn C. Outcomes after cochlear implantation for patients with single-sided deafness, including those with recalcitrant Ménière's disease. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (09) 1681-1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dillon MT, Buss E, Rooth MA. , et al. Effect of cochlear implantation on quality of life in adults with unilateral hearing loss. Audiol Neurotol 2017; 22 (4-5): 259-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Amoodi HA, Mick PT, Shipp DB. , et al. The effects of unilateral cochlear implantation on the tinnitus handicap inventory and the influence on quality of life. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (07) 1536-1540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bernstein JGW, Schuchman GI, Rivera AL. Head shadow and binaural squelch for unilaterally deaf cochlear implantees. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38 (07) e195-e202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. , et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) e1-e34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Carlson ML, Breen JT, Driscoll CL. , et al. Cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2: variables affecting auditory performance. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (05) 853-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 DeHart AN, Broaddus WC, Coelho DH. Translabyrinthine vestibular schwannoma resection with simultaneous cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2017; 18 (05) 278-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Available at: www.handbook.cochrane.org . Accessed January 16, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sanna M, Medina MD, Macak A, Rossi G, Sozzi V, Prasad SC. Vestibular schwannoma resection with ipsilateral simultaneous cochlear implantation in patients with normal contralateral hearing. Audiol Neurotol 2016; 21 (05) 286-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rooth MA, Dillon MT, Brown KD. Prospective evaluation of patients undergoing translabyrinthine excision of vestibular schwannoma with concurrent cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2017; 38 (10) 1512-1516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lloyd SK, Glynn FJ, Rutherford SA. , et al. Ipsilateral cochlear implantation after cochlear nerve preserving vestibular schwannoma surgery in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (01) 43-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ahsan S, Telischi F, Hodges A, Balkany T. Cochlear implantation concurrent with translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection. Laryngoscope 2003; 113 (03) 472-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kim JW, Han JH, Kim JW, Moon IS. Simultaneous translabyrinthine tumor removal and cochlear implantation in vestibular schwannoma patients. Yonsei Med J 2016; 57 (06) 1535-1539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dos Santos Neto PH, Zamponi Jr JO, Hamerschmidt R, Wiemes GRM, Rassi MS, Borba LAB. Simultaneous cochlear implantation as a therapeutic option in vestibular schwannoma surgery: case report. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 44 (03) E9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Arístegui M, Denia A. Simultaneous cochlear implantation and translabyrinthine removal of vestibular schwannoma in an only hearing ear: report of two cases (neurofibromatosis type 2 and unilateral vestibular schwannoma). Otol Neurotol 2005; 26 (02) 205-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cruz OL, Vellutini EA. Cochlear implant in type 2 neurofibromatosis: an option for better hearing rehabilitation. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2011; 77 (04) 538
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tran Ba Huy P, Kania R, Frachet B, Poncet C, Legac MS. Auditory rehabilitation with cochlear implantation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129 (09) 971-975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Neff BA, Wiet RM, Lasak JM. , et al. Cochlear implantation in the neurofibromatosis type 2 patient: long-term follow-up. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (06) 1069-1072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Zanetti D, Campovecchi CB, Pasini S, Nassif N. Simultaneous translabyrinthine removal of acoustic neuroma and cochlear implantation. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008; 35 (04) 562-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Vincenti V, Pasanisi E, Guida M, Di Trapani G, Sanna M. Hearing rehabilitation in neurofibromatosis type 2 patients: cochlear versus auditory brainstem implantation. Audiol Neurotol 2008; 13 (04) 273-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Plontke SK, Rahne T, Pfister M. , et al. Intralabyrinthine schwannomas: surgical management and hearing rehabilitation with cochlear implants. HNO 2017; 65 (Suppl. 02) 136-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ozdek A, Bayır O, Dönmez T. , et al. Hearing restoration in NF2 patients and patients with vestibular schwannoma in the only hearing ear: report of two cases. Am J Otolaryngol 2014; 35 (04) 538-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Halliday J, Rutherford SA, McCabe MG, Evans DG. An update on the diagnosis and treatment of vestibular schwannoma. Expert Rev Neurother 2018; 18 (01) 29-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Linthicum Jr FH, Brackmann DE. Bilateral acoustic tumors. A diagnostic and surgical challenge. Arch Otolaryngol 1980; 106 (12) 729-733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nikolopoulos TP, Mason SM, Gibbin KP, O'Donoghue GM. The prognostic value of promontory electric auditory brain stem response in pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (03) 236-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar