Background A small subset of patients with presumed idiopathic intracranial hypertension are found to have isolated internal jugular vein stenosis (IJVS).
Objective To review the current interventions used in patients who present with intracranial hypertension secondary to IJVS.
Methods In December 2020, we performed a literature search on Pubmed/Medline and Scopus databases for original articles studying surgical and endovascular interventions used for intracranial hypertension in the setting of internal jugular vein stenosis. No date, patient population, or study type was excluded.
Results All studies that included at least one case in which a surgical or endovascular intervention was used to treat IJVS were included. Selection criteria for patients varied, most commonly defined by identification of compression of the internal jugular vein. The 17 studies included in this review ranged from case reports to large single-center cohort studies. The most used surgical intervention was styloidectomy. Styloidectomy had an overall better outcome success rate (79%) than angioplasty/stenting (66%). No complications were recorded in any of the surgical cases analyzed. Outcome measures varied, but all studies recorded clinical symptoms of the patients.
Conclusion Few current large cohort studies analyze surgical and endovascular interventions for patients with IJVS. Notably, the most common intervention is styloidectomy, followed by internal jugular vein stenting. By understanding the trends and experience of interventionalists and surgeons, more focused and larger studies can be performed to determine effective strategies with the best clinical outcomes.
- intracranial pressure
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors SP, ARK, and FK conceived and presented idea. ARK, SP, and FK performed initial search and review of literature. WB, PN, and EH informed improving search process and data interpretation. All authors contributed to drafting and approving the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.