Mollan, Susan PTsermoulas, GeorgiosBerman, GabrieleToma, Ahmed KFergus, RobertsonWhite, PhilWakerley, Benjamin RSinclair, Alexandra J2026-01-272026-01-272025-12-09Mollan 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.1474-77581474-776610.1136/pn-2025-00472841381103pn-2025-004728https://westmid.openrepository.com/handle/20.500.14200/9463This 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.en© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.Cerebrospinal fluidCerebrospinal fluid shuntsOphthamologyRadiologyNeurosurgeryArticle