Quick update: after getting evaluations from Dr. Mangham at Seattle Ear Clinic, and Dr. Chang at Stanford, I have decided to go with Cyberknife. My biggest concern has been to choose the option which seemed to have the best hearing outcomes, and after a bunch of research (maybe Google should be considered a prescription drug!), I feel comfortable with my choice.
Dr. Mangham indicated that because of the small size (1cm) and location of my AN, I would have a better than average chance of saving my hearing. Taking that into consideration, I still feel that the 80% hearing preservation outcome that Cyberknife has been showing tips the scales in its' favor. I recently found references to a 10 year follow up of radiation which showed a decrease in hearing preservation to less than 50% ten years post-treatment, which I was disappointed with, but after speaking with Dr. Chang, he said that his data was showing 75% preservation five years out. Bottom line - I'm looking at slightly better than 50/50 odds when I wake up from microsurgery, or 80% wich Cyberknife, with the knowledge that it may decrease over time. I figure if 10 years out I'm at 50/50, I'm still 10 further down the road. Add to that the reduced risk of facial nerve damage, no CST leaks, etc. with Cyberknife. Maybe faulty logic... but it works for me.
My thanks to all who replied to my earlier post, and to everyone who shares their research, insights and experience on these boards. Thanks to Steve Gerrard for encouraging me to explore Cyberknife more thoroughly before deciding.
To those out there trying to decipher all the various studies as they relate to hearing preservation, a word of advice: make sure you are not comparing apples to oranges when looking at outcomes. There can be a big difference between "useful hearing" and hearing preservation in the same Gardner-Robinson hearing class.
Now all I have to do is get through the next month without going crazy...