Eden’s classification

1) It is the “gold standard” when neither CT nor MRI has been developed

2) The basic classification

1) It is insufficient to a guide the choice of surgical strategy

2) It is not based on modern imaging techniques

3) The membranous hierarchy of spinal schwannomas has been neglected

Asazuma’s classification

1) It is the first classification based on CT or MRI 2) It is highly useful for devising surgical approaches

1) It is not comprehensive

2) It cannot be used for thoracic or lumbar schwannomas

3) The guiding significance of the surgical approach is not fully applicable today

4) The membranous hierarchy of spinal schwannomas has been neglected

Peking university third hospital classification

1) It is comprehensive 2) It further rationalizes the surgical approach for cervical dumbbell tumors

1) It cannot be used for thoracic or lumbar schwannomas 2) The membranous hierarchy of spinal schwannomas has been neglected

Sun’s classification

It takes into consideration tumor volume and tumor localization relative to the dura and spinal canal

1) The relationship between the tumor and surrounding structure is not clear 2) The surgical guidance of this classification is not described clearly 3) It is not comprehensive

SRIDHAR’s classification

1) It aims to define giant spinal schwannomas and discuss their surgical management

2) The focus of this classification is on the relationship between the tumor and the vertebral body and foramen

The membranous hierarchy of spinal schwannomas has been neglected

Jinnai’s classification

1) It describes the relationship between the tumor and the dura mater and/or intervertebral foramen

2) It improves the GTR rates of tumors to some extent 3. It tries to use the growth patterns of schwannomas to explain the clinical symptoms

1) It does not indicate the surgical guidance based on the classification

2) It does not pay attention to the arachnoid

3) It does not systematically explain the growth model of schwannomas