Translate this page into:
Neurofibroma of External Ear: The Updates
Address for correspondence: Dr. Neha Shakrawal, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur 302005, Rajasthan, India. E-mail: drnehasnmc@gmail.com
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Dear Editor,
I would like to resubmit this article for the kind consideration for publication in your esteemed journal. I am happy to inform you that I have thoroughly gone through the literature to address the issues raised by the reviewers with evidences. I give a point wise reply to the reviewers’ comments.
REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS
Which histopathologic variant is common among external ear neurofibroma (NF)?
How long the patients need follow-up?
Follow-up is mainly to identify an early recurrence in operated cases. If we are planning observation only, wait and watch at regular intervals with radiological evaluation and radical excision if there is an evidence of tumor growth.[7]
As we know that diffuse NFs recur frequently.[8] Follow-up should depend on the age of the patient, extent and location of tumor, and partial or complete excision status.
Literature does not mention the exact duration for follow-up. van Zuuren and Posma[2] advised yearly follow-up in their article.
Is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) necessary in all these patients?
Imaging is done to know the characteristic, extent, and deeper extension of a soft tissue lesion. Although NFs are superficial lesions, which can be evaluated clinically, but it is always better to carry out radiology before histopathological confirmation. Ultrasonography (USG) and computed tomography (CT) can assess the nature but cannot demarcate between the vascularity of the lesion. USG has the advantages of no radiation exposure, cost-effectiveness, and early reports; it also carries limitations of not assessing the extent and depth of larger lesions. CT can help to know the extent when bony external auditory canal starts getting involved.
MRI is the investigation of choice as it demarcates the tumor with the surrounding structures; it also differentiates between all three varieties, that is, local, plexiform, and diffuse. USG and CT scans are less reliable as diffuse NF resembles lipoma or hemangioma.[11]
If MRI suggests a highly vascular lesion, consider a preoperative angiogram, and if necessary, a preoperative intra-arterial embolization, if hemorrhage is anticipated.[12]
Therefore, in resourceful settings, we should consider MRI as a necessary investigation in these patients.
What are the long-term complications of surgery in these patients?
Several authors advised for wide meatoplasty to prevent reobstruction.[19] We have a case that reports wide external auditory canal after 5.5-year follow-up.[20] Therefore, the major concerns to be kept in mind during surgery are the extent of resection in balance to the likelihood of recurrence and loss of function.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
I thank the reviewers for the helpful suggestions and for the prudent handling of my article.
REFERENCES
- Histopathological variations of neurofibroma. A study of 114 lesions. Am J Dermatopathol. 1994;16:486-95.
- [Google Scholar]
- Diffuse neurofibroma of the orbit associated with temporal meningocele and neurofibromatosis-1. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;119:652-5.
- [Google Scholar]
- Subcutaneous diffuse neurofibroma of the neck: a case report. J Laryngol Otol. 1996;110:182-4.
- [Google Scholar]
- Benign tumors of peripheral nerves. In: Enzinger and Weiss’s soft tissue tumors. (4th ed). St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2001. p. :1132-40.
- [Google Scholar]
- Neurogenic tumors. In: Imaging of soft tissue tumors (2nd ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. :334-8.
- [Google Scholar]
- Diffuse neurofibroma obstructing the external auditory meatus. J Laryngol Otol. 1997;111:145-7.
- [Google Scholar]
- Neurofibroma of the ear: function and aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;70:217-9.
- [Google Scholar]
- Prognostic signs in the surgical management of plexiform neurofibroma: the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia experience, 1974–1994. J Pediatr. 1997;131:678-82.
- [Google Scholar]
- Management of head and neck plexiform neurofibromas in pediatric patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131:712-8.
- [Google Scholar]
- Extracranial diffuse neurofibroma with intracranial extension. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:801-3.
- [Google Scholar]
- Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of individuals with neurofibromatosis 1. J Med Genet. 2007;44:81-8.
- [Google Scholar]
- Pediatric plexiform neurofibromas: impact on morbidity and mortality in neurofibromatosis type 1. J Pediatr. 2012;160:461-7.
- [Google Scholar]
- Resection of plexiform neurofibromas in children with neurofibromatosis type 1. J Pediatr Orthop. 2011;31:303-11.
- [Google Scholar]
- Multiple neurofibromatosis. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas; 1956.
- M-meatoplasty: results and patient satisfaction in 125 patients (199 ears) Otol Neurotol. 2001;22:457-60.
- [Google Scholar]
- Surgical removal of diffuse-type neurofibroma involving the auditory external canal in a patient with neurofibromatosis type 1. Int Adv Otol. 2012;8:497-502.
- [Google Scholar]