ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2025
Venous sinus stenting versus ventriculoperitoneal shunting: Comparing perioperative costs for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionVenous sinus stenting (VSS) is an effective, less invasive alternative to ventriculoperitoneal shunting (VPS) for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). While efficacy is comparable, with some evidence favoring VSS for headache control, perioperative costs remain under-characterized due to reliance on reimbursement rates rather than actual expenditures.ObjectiveTo compare the perioperative cost of elective VSS and VPS for IIH, including outpatient workup and follow-up costs, using detailed institutional cost data.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed IIH patients treated with VSS or VPS from 2017 to 2022 at a single center. All IIH-related costs were captured from 90 days pre-op through 90 days post-op and categorized as fixed (e.g. OR staff) or variable (e.g. supplies). Patients with fulminant IIH or unrelated elective procedures were excluded. Comparisons used Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests (p < 0.05).ResultsForty-three patients met criteria (VSS n = 19, VPS n = 24), with no significant differences in age, body mass index, papilledema, opening pressure, or pulsatile tinnitus. Preoperative costs were significantly higher for VSS (median $14,951 [IQR 10,835-16,043] vs $4767 [1, 293, 410-11]; p = 0.008), including both variable (p = 0.008) and fixed (p = 0.015) cost components. Surgical admission costs were similar between groups (p = 0.403), as were postoperative costs (p = 0.509). Total 180-day costs remained significantly higher for VSS ($38,576 [011-43, 36, 590]) compared to VPS ($31,509 [25, 208-37, 342]; p = 0.001).ConclusionVSS incurs higher preoperative and total costs than VPS. Streamlining VSS workup may improve value. Further studies should assess downstream cost avoidance to determine long-term cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.