Retrosigmoid Versus Translabyrinthine Approach for Acoustic Neuroma Resection: An Assessment of Complications and Payments in a Longitudinal Administrative Database. Cure¯us Cole, T., Veeravagu, A., Zhang, M., Azad, T., Swinney, C., Li, G. H., Ratliff, J. K., Giannotta, S. L. 2015; 7 (10)

Abstract

Object Retrosigmoid (RS) and translabyrinthine (TL) surgery remain essential treatment approaches for symptomatic or enlarging acoustic neuromas (ANs). We compared nationwide complication rates and payments, independent of tumor characteristics, for these two strategies. Methods We identified 346 and 130 patients who underwent RS and TL approaches, respectively, for AN resection in the 2010-2012 MarketScan database, which characterizes primarily privately-insured patients from multiple institutions nationwide. Results Although we found no difference in 30-day general neurological or neurosurgical complication rates, in TL procedures there was a decreased risk for postoperative cranial nerve (CN) VII injury (20.2% vs 10.0%, CI 0.23-0.82), dysphagia (10.4% vs 3.1%, CI 0.10-0.78), and dysrhythmia (8.4% vs 2.3%, CI 0.08-0.86). Overall, there was no difference in surgical repair rates of CSF leak; however, intraoperative fat grafting was significantly higher in TL approaches (19.8% vs 60.2%, CI 3.95-9.43). In patients receiving grafts, there was a trend towards a higher repair rate after RS approach, while in those without grafts, there was a trend towards a higher repair rate after TL approach. Median total payments were $16,856 higher after RS approaches ($67,774 vs $50,918, p < 0.0001), without differences in physician or 90-day postoperative payments. Conclusions  Using a nationwide longitudinal database, we observed that the TL, compared to RS, approach for AN resection experienced lower risks of CN VII injury, dysphagia, and dysrhythmia. There was no significant difference in CSF leak repair rates. The payments for RS procedures exceed payments for TL procedures by approximately $17,000. Data from additional years and non-private sources will further clarify these trends.

View details for DOI 10.7759/cureus.369

View details for PubMedID 26623224

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4659577