Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T08:55:51.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Where is it safe to leave residual Vestibular Schwannoma during surgery?

Presenting Author: Anand Kasbekar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

Anand Kasbekar
Affiliation:
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Guleed Adan
Affiliation:
Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Alaina Beacall
Affiliation:
Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Ahmed Youssef
Affiliation:
Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Catherine Gilkes
Affiliation:
Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Tristram Lesser
Affiliation:
Aintree University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstracts
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Learning Objectives:

Objectives: To identify whether certain locations at the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) and internal auditory meatus (IAM) predispose to growth of medium and large unilateral Vestibular Schwannoma (VS) residual tumour left behind at surgery.

Methods: A retrospective review of case notes and radiology scans was undertaken at the Liverpool Skull Base unit. Measurements conformed to the 2003 Consensus meeting on VS reporting.

Results: 67 unilateral sporadic VS were surgically treated between the years 2006 and 2010 of which 52 had residual tumour left behind available for analysis, Of these, 20 grew [these had previous excisions which were 4 near-total excisions (less than 5% residual tumour left), and 16 sub-total excisions (more than 5% residual tumour left)]. Follow-up was for a median of 6.4 years (6.4 to 8.1 years). Residuum was left at various locations: the CPA had 48 residuals, 21 grew (44%); the IAM had 47 residuals, 14 grew (30%). Within the IAM the porus had 47 residuals, 11 grew (23%); and the fundus had 12 residuals, 2 grew (14%). Time to growth varied between 1.75 years and 5.5 years (average 3.1 years). Of the 20 growing residuum, 17 required treatment (13 had radiotherapy, 3 had surgery followed by radiotherapy, 1 had just surgery).

Conclusions: Along with other patient, tumour, and surgical factors, the less than 95% excision of VS predisposes to regrowth of the residual tumour, and such patients should be monitored closely for at least 10 years. The data suggests that the CPA is the most likely site for residual tumour to grow and that the IAM is a safer site to leave tumour behind, if necessary. The larger the VS, the greater the size of the residual tumour left at surgery and thus the greater the chance of regrowth. These factors should be borne in mind when deciding on when to intervene in patients with growing tumours. There is a need for standardised reporting of residual tumour outcomes, which will allow accurate comparison, and pooling of data.