# Diagnostic Pitfall in the Carotid Space: Accessory Nerve Schwannoma Simulating Cystic Metastasis—A Case Report

## TL;DR

A rare case of an accessory nerve schwannoma in the carotid space was misdiagnosed as a metastatic cyst, highlighting the challenges in diagnosing such rare tumors.

## Contribution

This case report emphasizes the diagnostic difficulty of accessory nerve schwannomas and the need for intraoperative visualization for accurate identification.

## Key findings

- Imaging features of the schwannoma included T2/STIR hyperintensity, peripheral enhancement, and split-fat sign.
- Intraoperative visualization confirmed the tumor's attachment to the accessory nerve, correcting the initial radiological diagnosis.

## Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this case report is to highlight the diagnostic challenges of carotid space masses, share clinical experience, and educate clinicians by presenting a case of a rare disease. Introduction: Accessory nerve schwannomas are rare, benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors. They make up only a small percentage of all cervical schwannomas. Given their rarity and varying appearance on imaging, these tumors can be difficult to accurately diagnose. Schwannomas may mimic other carotid space pathologies, such as metastatic lymphadenopathy, paragangliomas, or sympathetic chain tumors. Accurately identifying the nerve of origin before surgery is important for effective surgical planning and neurological function protection. Case Description: A 50-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic left-sided neck mass. Computed tomography (CT) revealed a cystic lesion with a thick, contrast-enhancing capsule in the left carotid space, causing internal jugular vein compression and partial thrombosis. Subsequent MRI showed a 28 mm × 23 mm × 38 mm well-defined mass with characteristic schwannoma features, including T2/Short tau inversion recovery (STIR) hyperintensity, peripheral enhancement, central cystic degenerative components, and peripheral diffusion restriction with corresponding lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. Split-fat sign and fascicular sign were also seen on the MRI. Despite these imaging findings, the radiological interpretation suggested a sympathetic chain schwannoma as the most likely diagnosis. The correct diagnosis of accessory nerve schwannoma was established intraoperatively when the mass was visualized to be attached to the accessory nerve. Conclusions: This case highlights that even with suggestive MRI features, the rarity of accessory nerve schwannomas can lead to misidentification of the nerve of origin. Accurate diagnosis may require intraoperative visualization, thus marking the importance of including accessory nerve involvement in the differential diagnosis of carotid space masses.