However, the risk of facial palsy was about 17 times lower with SRS than with microsurgical resection. There were also great effects for the outcome “hearing”: the likelihood of preserving functional hearing was about 23 times higher with SRS than with microsurgical resection. If the procedure was not performed on an outpatient basis, the average hospital stay for patients receiving SRS in the studies analysed was 2.5 days. In comparison, patients undergoing microsurgical resection are always hospitalized; the average hospital stay in the studies analysed was 12.5 days and 5.1 days.
In summary, the clear advantages of SRS versus microsurgical resection (hints of greater benefit due to fewer cases of facial palsy, hearing loss and hospitalizations) are not countered by hints of greater harm.
Study designs allow conclusions on benefit in the form of hints
Patients were not actively allocated to the treatment arms according to pre-planned rules in any study, but mainly according to the patients' wishes. The test and control groups therefore differed in the number and age of the study participants and in the size of their tumours. However, great effects were present in all studies, which cannot be explained by bias alone. In addition, in one of the three studies, relevant prognostic factors were considered in the analysis. Conclusions on benefit in the form of hints were therefore possible.
Procedure of report production
In June 2021, IQWiG published the preliminary results, the preliminary report, for discussion. After completion of the commenting procedure, the project team revised the preliminary report and in May sent the final report to the contracting agency, the G-BA. The written comments received are published in a separate document at the same time as the final report.
Back to HCB News
