Introduction 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. Objective To review surgical labyrinthectomy and vestibular neurectomy for the treatment of incapacitating vestibular disorders. Data Sources PubMed, MD consult and Ovid-SP databases. Data Synthesis 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. Conclusions 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.

Introduction Superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome was described by Minor et al in 1998. It is a troublesome syndrome that results in vertigo and oscillopsia induced by loud sounds or changes in the pressure of the external auditory canal or middle ear. Patients may present with autophony, hyperacusis, pulsatile tinnitus and hearing loss. When symptoms are mild, they are usually managed conservatively, but surgical intervention may be needed for patients with debilitating symptoms. Objective The aim of this manuscript is to review the different surgical techniques used to repair the superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Data Sources PubMed and Ovid-SP databases. Data Synthesis The different approaches are described and discussed, as well as their limitations. We also review the advantages and disadvantages of the plugging, capping and resurfacing techniques to repair the dehiscence. Conclusions Each of the surgical approaches has advantages and disadvantages. The middle fossa approach gives a better view of the dehiscence, but comes with a higher morbidity than the transmastoid approach. Endoscopic assistance may be advantageous during the middle cranial fossa approach for better visualization. The plugging and capping techniques are associated with higher success rates than resurfacing, with no added risk of hearing loss.

No abstract