Preservation of hearing in patients undergoing microsurgery for vestibular schwannoma: degree of meatal filling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Preservation of hearing has become a standard goal in selected patients undergoing surgery for a vestibular schwannoma (VS). This study was aimed at analyzing the role played by filling of the internal auditory canal (IAC) as well as those played by preoperative hearing quality, and tumor size in the postoperative preservation of serviceable hearing (SH). METHODS: Three hundred eighty-six patients with VS were treated. Hearing preservation was attempted in 128 cases (33.2%) by using intraoperative monitoring and following a retrosigmoid approach. The maximal extrameatal size of the tumor, its extension within the IAC, and pre- and postoperative hearing quality, according to the Gardner-Robertson classification, were evaluated. Preservation of SH was achieved in 24.2% of the 128 patients. With respect to tumor size, SH was preserved in 39% of 77 patients harboring a tumor 15 mm wide or smaller and in 2% of 51 patients with lesions 16 mm wide or larger (p < 0.001). With regard to filling of the IAC, among 63 patients harboring a tumor 15 mm or smaller, in whom magnetic resonance images were available, SH was preserved in 52.8% of 36 patients with partial filling and in 25.9% of 27 patients with complete filling (p = 0.032). Concerning preoperative hearing quality, in the patients with tumors 15 mm or smaller, SH was preserved in 46.5% of 43 patients with Gardner-Robertson Class I hearing and 29.4% of 34 patients with Class II hearing (p = 0.126). Both tumor size and the extent of IAC filling proved statistically significant in a multivariable analysis (p < 0.001 and p = 0.026, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete filling of the IAC and a tumor size of 15 mm or smaller are independent favorable factors in SH preservation. Excellent preoperative hearing appears to have a positive impact but does not have statistical significance. Intraoperative monitoring is useful in guiding the dissection; however, the surgeon's knowledge of topographical landmarks and meticulous surgical technique remain the essential factors of success.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".