Unilateral Acoustic Neuromas: Long-Term Hearing Results in Patients Managed with Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy, Hearing Preservation Surgery, and Expectantly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hearing preservation is invariably a consideration when exploring treatment options for acoustic neuromas. We reviewed the long-term hearing results of patients who were treated using 1) hyperfractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSR), 2) hearing preservation tumor excision surgery (HPTES), and 3) expectantly (no treatment). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Single institution retrospective chart review of 42 patients managed with HSR (1993-2003), 113 patients in whom HPTES was carried out, and 86 patients who were untreated (1974-2003). Hearing levels were graded according to the Gardner-Robertson classification. RESULTS: The percent of patients managed with HSR initially who had serviceable hearing (class 1-2) was 68.8%. This fell to 6.7% in the follow-up interval. Of the group treated with HPTES, 100% had preoperative serviceable hearing. This dropped to 15.9% in the follow-up interval. The percent of patients managed expectantly who initially had serviceable hearing was 77.3%. This dropped to 33.3% during the follow-up interval. Mean follow-up periods were 4.0, 9.5, and 6.8 years in the HSR, HPTES, and expectant groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing acuity statistically worsened over the long term (P < .01) in all three groups. There was a significant proportion of patients in whom hearing deteriorated from serviceable to nonserviceable hearing (P < .01) during the follow-up interval. The decline was most significant in the groups treated with HPTES and HSR compared with the group treated expectantly (P < .05). Hearing outcomes, in our experience, continue to be poor, but this is especially so in patients treated with HPTES or HSR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".