Stenting versus shunting in sight-threatening idiopathic intracranial hypertension: genuine equipoise.
Mollan, Susan P Tsermoulas, Georgios Berman, Gabriele Toma, Ahmed K Fergus, Robertson White, Phil Wakerley, Benjamin R Sinclair, Alexandra J
Mollan, Susan P
Tsermoulas, Georgios
Berman, Gabriele
Toma, Ahmed K
Fergus, Robertson
White, Phil
Wakerley, Benjamin R
Sinclair, Alexandra J
Affiliation
Other Contributors
Publication date
2025-12-09
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
This opinion piece discusses the challenges of managing a person with sight-threatening papilloedema due to idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). With no available randomised controlled trials, clinicians often choose locally available surgical intervention. An increasing number of studies have advocated using dural venous sinus stenting in IIH. Big data studies show that shunts have been the mainstay of surgical treatment for IIH, and recent evidence shows improved outcomes and fewer revision surgeries. There remains genuine equipoise in the choice of intervention between shunting and dural venous stenting in IIH. The IIH Intervention Trial funded by the National Institute of Health Research is underway in the UK, the first randomised control trial to evaluate both of these surgical interventions in people with sight-threatening IIH.
Citation
Mollan SP, Tsermoulas G, Berman G, Toma AK, Fergus R, White P, Wakerley BR, Sinclair AJ. Stenting versus shunting in sight-threatening idiopathic intracranial hypertension: genuine equipoise. Pract Neurol. 2025 Dec 9:pn-2025-004728. doi: 10.1136/pn-2025-004728. Epub ahead of print.
Type
Article