Cerebrospinal fluid leak after acoustic neuroma surgery: influence of tumor size and surgical approach on incidence and response to treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The aims of this study were to review the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage complicating the removal of acoustic neuroma and to identify factors that influence its occurrence and treatment. METHODS: Prospective information on consecutive patients who underwent operation for acoustic neuroma was supplemented by a retrospective review of the medical records in which patients with CSF leaks complicating tumor removal were identified. This paper represents a continuation of a previously published series and thus compiles the authors' continuous experience over the last 24 years of practice. In 624 cases of acoustic neuroma the authors observed an overall incidence of 10.7% for CSF leak. The rate of leakage was significantly lower in the last 9 years compared with the first 15, most likely because of the abandonment of the combined translabyrinthine (TL)-middle fossa exposure. There was no difference in the leakage rate between TL and retrosigmoid (RS) approaches, although there were differences in the site of the leak (wound leaks occurred more frequently after a TL and otorrhea after an RS approach, respectively). Tumor size (maximum extracanalicular diameter) had a significant effect on the leakage rate overall and for RS but not for TL procedures. The majority of leaks ceased with nonsurgical treatments (18% with expectant management and 49% with lumbar CSF drainage). However, TL leaks (especially rhinorrhea) required surgical repair significantly more often than RS leaks. This has not been reported previously. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of CSF leakage after TL and RS procedures has remained stable. Factors influencing its occurrence include tumor size but not surgical approach. The TL-related leaks had a significantly higher surgical repair rate than RS-related leaks, an additional factor to consider when choosing an approach. The problem of CSF leakage becomes increasingly important as nonsurgical treatments for acoustic neuroma are developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".