Evaluating vestibular schwannoma size and volume on magnetic resonance imaging: An inter- and intra-rater agreement study

2016 ◽  
Vol 145 ◽  
pp. 68-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna C. Lawson McLean ◽  
Aaron Lawson McLean ◽  
Steffen K. Rosahl
1998 ◽  
Vol 112 (9) ◽  
pp. 860-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. D. Dawes ◽  
J.-P. Jeannon

AbstractAn audit of 334 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as investigation for a possible diagnosis of vestibular schwannoma was carried out to assess adherence to previously agreed screening guidelines. This represents one year's activity. A posterior fossa tumour was identified in 12 patients. Scan requests were judged to be inappropriate for 28 cases. The issues surrounding the screening for acoustic neuroma are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 133 (11) ◽  
pp. 948-952
Author(s):  
B A D Mettias ◽  
M Lyons

AbstractObjectiveVestibular schwannoma is the most common neoplasm in the cerebellopontine angle, and fast spin-echo T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is the most sensitive test for diagnosing it. This study evaluated the financial and time costs of unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging referrals before and after the application of a magnetic resonance imaging protocol.MethodA full audit cycle was used for the assessment. The first cycle in January 2012 was retrospective and evaluated the financial impact of current selection criteria for magnetic resonance imaging referral against standard guidelines. The second cycle in January 2014 was prospective after implementation of the protocol.ResultsThere were 46 and 112 patients who had magnetic resonance imaging during first and second cycle, respectively. Of the referrals for magnetic resonance imaging, 65 per cent versus 81 per cent of the referrals were appropriate in the first and second cycles, respectively. The relative risk was reduced from 0.5 to 0.2. The waiting times for magnetic resonance imaging scans improved.ConclusionSelection criteria for magnetic resonance imaging referral are important in reducing waiting times for scans, patient anxiety and conserving trust resources.


2013 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 615-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoaki Nakai ◽  
Hirotaka Yamamoto ◽  
Kazuhiro Tanaka ◽  
Junji Koyama ◽  
Atsushi Fujita ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Martinez Devesa ◽  
M. J. Wareing ◽  
D. A. Moffat

A case is presented of an entirely intracanalicular meningioma in a 48-year-old woman that was excised via a conventional translabyrinthine approach to the internal auditory canal (IAC). Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suggested that the tumour was a vestibular schwannoma (VS). Histological examination confirmed the intra-operative impression that the tumour was a meningioma. Although VS is by far the commonest intracanalicular tumour, the differential diagnosis includes meningioma. MRI is unable to distinguish between these two entities when the tumour is located entirely in the internal auditory canal.


2015 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Pan ◽  
J Huang ◽  
C Morioka ◽  
G Hathout ◽  
S M El-Saden

AbstractBackground:Vestibular schwannomas are a rare cause of asymmetrical hearing loss, and routine screening with magnetic resonance imaging can be costly. This paper reports results on vestibular schwannoma screening at our institution and compares the cost of screening to a utility of hearing benefit.Method:All screening examinations with magnetic resonance imaging performed for asymmetrical hearing loss between 2006 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The cost per new vestibular schwannoma diagnosis was calculated. The cost per patient for those who benefitted from intervention was estimated based on rates of hearing preservation reported in the literature.Results:Forty-five (4.3 per cent) of 1050 screening examinations with magnetic resonance imaging performed for asymmetrical hearing loss were positive for vestibular schwannoma, and the cost per new diagnosis was $11 436. The estimated screening cost per patient for those who benefitted from surgery or radiation was $147 030, while US federal compensation for unilateral hearing loss was $44 888.Conclusion:Although we achieved a lower screening cost per new diagnosis than reported in the current literature, there remains disparity between the screening cost per benefitted patient and the ‘benefit’ of hearing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document