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

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 a 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Practical Neurology
Published
2025-12-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/pn-2025-004728
Primary Topic
Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Phil White, Georgios Tsermoulas, Ahmed K. Toma, Benjamin R. Wakerley et al.
Practical Neurology
Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
article

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

Phil White, Georgios Tsermoulas, Ahmed K. Toma, Benjamin R. Wakerley, Susan P. Mollan, Alexandra J. Sinclair, Gabriele Berman, Robertson Fergus
article en

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 a 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.

Practical NeurologyVol. 26(2)
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Queen's University (CA), Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital (GB), National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB), University College London (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, University College London
Openalex Percentile: Top 46%
Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Stenting versus shunting in sight-threatening idiopathic intracranial hypertension: genuine equipoise — Phil White, Georgios Tsermoulas, et al. · Practical Neurology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS