Alarcón Alfredo Vega, Hidalgo Lourdes Olivia Vales, Arévalo Rodrigo Jácome, Diaz Marite Palma
Neurology Center, Centro Médico American British Cowdray, México, DF, Mexico; Otorhinolaryngology and Neurotology Department, Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía Dr. Manuel Velasco Suárez, México, DF, Mexico.
Otorhinolaryngology and Neurotology Department, Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía Dr. Manuel Velasco Suárez, México, DF, Mexico.
Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Apr;21(2):184-190. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1599242.
Labyrinthectomy and vestibular neurectomy are considered the surgical procedures with the highest possibility of controlling medically untreatable incapacitating vertigo. Ironically, after 100 years of the introduction of both transmastoid labyrinthectomy and vestibular neurectomy, the choice of which procedure to use rests primarily on the evaluation of the hearing and of the surgical morbidity. To review surgical labyrinthectomy and vestibular neurectomy for the treatment of incapacitating vestibular disorders. PubMed, MD consult and Ovid-SP databases. In this review we describe and compare surgical labyrinthectomy and vestibular neurectomy. A contrast between surgical and chemical labyrinthectomy is also examined. Proper candidate selection, success in vertigo control and complication rates are discussed on the basis of a literature review. Vestibular nerve section and labyrinthectomy achieve high and comparable rates of vertigo control. Even though vestibular neurectomy is considered a hearing sparing surgery, since it is an intradural procedure, it carries a greater risk of complications than transmastoid labyrinthectomy. Furthermore, since many patients whose hearing is preserved with vestibular nerve section may ultimately lose that hearing, the long-term value of hearing preservation is not well established. Although the combination of both procedures, in the form of a translabyrinthine vestibular nerve section, is the most certain way to ablate vestibular function for patients with no useful hearing and disabling vertigo, some advocate for transmastoid labyrinthectomy alone, considering that avoiding opening the subarachnoid space minimizes the possible intracranial complications. Chemical labyrinthectomy may be considered a safer alternative, but the risks of hearing loss when hearing preservation is desired are also high.
迷路切除术和前庭神经切除术被认为是控制药物治疗无效的致残性眩晕最有可能采用的外科手术。具有讽刺意味的是,在经乳突迷路切除术和前庭神经切除术引入100年后,选择哪种手术主要取决于对听力和手术发病率的评估。 综述外科迷路切除术和前庭神经切除术治疗致残性前庭疾病的情况。 PubMed、MD consult和Ovid-SP数据库。 在本综述中,我们描述并比较了外科迷路切除术和前庭神经切除术。还研究了外科迷路切除术和化学迷路切除术之间的差异。在文献综述的基础上,讨论了合适的候选者选择、眩晕控制的成功率和并发症发生率。 前庭神经切断术和迷路切除术在眩晕控制方面达到了较高且相当的成功率。尽管前庭神经切除术被认为是一种保留听力的手术,因为它是一种硬膜内手术,但其并发症风险比经乳突迷路切除术更大。此外,由于许多在前庭神经切断术后听力得以保留的患者最终可能会失去听力,因此听力保留的长期价值尚未得到充分证实。尽管对于没有有效听力且患有致残性眩晕的患者,两种手术的联合形式——经迷路前庭神经切断术——是消除前庭功能最确定的方法,但一些人主张仅采用经乳突迷路切除术,认为避免打开蛛网膜下腔可将可能的颅内并发症降至最低。化学迷路切除术可能被认为是一种更安全的选择,但在希望保留听力的情况下听力丧失的风险也很高。