Future Directions and Innovations in Venous Sinus Stenting.

This review explores the future role of venous sinus stenting (VSS) in the management of idiopathic intracranial hypertension and pulsatile tinnitus. Despite its favorable safety profile and clinical outcomes compared with traditional treatments, VSS is not yet the standard of care for these conditions, lacking high-level evidence data and guidelines for patient selection and indications. Current and recently completed clinical trials are expected to provide data to support the adoption of VSS as a primary treatment option. Additionally, VSS shows potential in treating other conditions, such as dural arteriovenous fistula and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and it is likely that the procedure will continue to see an expansion of its approved indications. The current lack of dedicated venous stenting technology is being addressed with promising advancements, which may improve procedural ease and patient outcomes. VSS also offers potential for expansion into modulation of brain electrophysiology via endovascular routes, offering exciting possibilities for neurodiagnostics and treatment of neurodegenerative disorders.

Challenges in the use of Venous Sinus Stenting in the Treatment of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension and Pulsatile Tinnitus.

Although numerous case series and meta-analyses have shown the efficacy of venous sinus stenting (VSS) in the treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension and idiopathic intracranial hypertension-associated pulsatile tinnitus, there remain numerous challenges to be resolved. There is no widespread agreement on candidacy; pressure gradient and failed medical treatment are common indications, but not all clinicians require medical refractoriness as a criterion. Venous manometry, venography, and cerebral angiography are essential tools for patient assessment, but again disagreements exist regarding the best, or most appropriate, diagnostic imaging choice. Challenges with the VSS technique also exist, such as stent choice and deployment. There are considerations regarding postprocedural balloon angioplasty and pharmacologic treatment, but there is insufficient evidence to formalize postoperative decision making. Although complications of VSS are relatively rare, they include in-stent stenosis, hemorrhage, and subdural hematoma, and the learning curve for VSS presents specific challenges in navigating venous anatomy, emphasizing the need for wider availability of high-quality training. Recurrence of symptoms, particularly stent-adjacent stenosis, poses challenges, and although restenting and cerebrospinal fluid-diverting procedures are options, there is a need for clearer criteria for retreatment strategies. Despite these challenges, when comparing VSS with traditional cerebrospinal fluid-diverting procedures, VSS emerges as a favorable option, with strong clinical outcomes, lower complication rates, and cost-effectiveness. Further research is necessary to refine techniques and indications and address specific aspects of VSS to overcome these challenges.