English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The minimal access retrosigmoid endoscopic approach to vestibular schwannoma (VS) resection has been used with promising results. However, it has not been compared with the standard open approach in the literature. We performed a meta-analysis review for all articles describing both approaches for VS from 1996 to 2011. We found 1861 articles. After review and discussion, we narrowed our study to 25 articles, 4 endoscopic and 21 open. The total number of patients was 3026 for open and 790 for endoscopic. The mean tumor sizes in the open and endoscopic series were 2.5 cm and 2.7 cm, respectively. Good facial nerve outcome was achieved in 67% of the open series patients and in 94% of the endoscopic series patients. Other outcomes in the open and endoscopic series were the following: gross total resection, 91% versus 97%; functional hearing, 22.6% versus 46%; wound infection, 1.3% versus 2.6%; and recurrence, 5.4% versus 2.2%. We acknowledge the limitations of our study, but we can state that the endoscopic approach is not inferior to the standard open approach. In expert hands the endoscopic approach can offer as good a result as the open, with potential benefits such as less pain and a shorter length of stay in the hospital. There is a need for more controlled studies for a definitive comparison.

Facial Nerve Outcome after Vestibular Schwannoma Resection: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic versus Open Retrosigmoid Approach