Stenting versus shunting in sight-threatening idiopathic intracranial hypertension: genuine equipoise

  • Susan P Mollan*
  • , Georgios Tsermoulas
  • , Gabriele Berman
  • , Ahmed K Toma
  • , Fergus Robertson
  • , Phil White
  • , Benjamin Wakerley
  • , Alex Sinclair
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberpn-2025-004728.R1
Number of pages5
JournalPractical Neurology
Early online date9 Dec 2025
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 9 Dec 2025

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Stenting versus shunting in sight-threatening idiopathic intracranial hypertension: genuine equipoise'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this