I have moved this topic to the radiation section, since it is about CK and GK.
I want to make some general comments. One is that GK and CK are both very good systems for treating ANs with radiation. When Nancy Drew was looking into it (she ended up doing GK in Colorado), we had quite a good discussion about the differences and similarities. CK may be somewhat better for hearing preservation; the hard numbers on that have not been published, but there are indications that the rate is a little higher. Given the choice, I chose CK, but I would not hesitate to do GK instead - they are both good.
The second is about findings stats. You will not find many stats for individual facilities. Two exceptions would be House Ear Clinic on surgery, and Stanford on Cyberknife; there are some others. Unless they are publishing papers on the subject, most facilities will not have that data. There has been talk of setting up national databases of this sort of thing, but it is all talk so far.
I think it makes more sense to look at the overall results of surgery and radiation. It does help to find a treating doctor who has experience dealing with ANs, but for radiation it is probably less important, since much of the work is done by computers anyway.
The really important point is that the statistics are just a guideline, they are not a guarantee of what will happen to you. You can pick the best and still come out with a crummy result, and you can pick an unknown doctor and come out with a great result. It is not generally easy to decide what to do, but I think most of find that at some point, one particular course of action feels like the right thing for us - a gut feeling that this is what we are going to do. Once that happens, you commit to it, and then stop worrying about it and see what happens.
Steve
