Blog

<h2>Understanding Peripheral Nerve Injury Classification</h2><p>Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) are a significant clinical challenge, often resulting in motor, sensory, or autonomic deficits. Their classification plays a crucial role in determining prognosis and guiding effective treatment. This article provides a concise overview of the key classification systems for PNIs and outlines expected spontaneous recovery timelines and standard therapeutic approaches for each type.</p><h3>Classification of Peripheral Nerve Injuries</h3><p>The two primary classification systems used for PNIs are Seddon's and Sunderland's.</p><p><strong>Seddon's Classification (1942) categorizes PNIs into three main types [1]:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Neurapraxia</strong> – A transient conduction block without axonal damage, often due to mild compression or ischemia.<br></li><li><strong>Axonotmesis</strong> – Disruption of the axon with preserved connective tissue structures, leading to Wallerian degeneration.<br></li><li><strong>Neurotmesis</strong> – Complete severance of the nerve fiber and its supporting structures, generally requiring surgical repair.</li></ul><p><br><strong>Sunderland's Classification (1951) refines this model into five grades, offering a more granular understanding [2]:</strong></p><ul><li><strong>Grade I (Neurapraxia)</strong> – Localized demyelination with intact axons.<br></li><li><strong>Grade II</strong> – Axonal disruption with intact endoneurium.<br></li><li><strong>Grade III</strong> – Damage to axons and endoneurium; perineurium remains intact.<br></li><li><strong>Grade IV</strong> – Involvement of axons, endoneurium, and perineurium; epineurium is intact.<br></li><li><strong>Grade V (Neurotmesis)</strong> – Total disruption of the nerve trunk, including all surrounding connective tissue.</li></ul><h3>Spontaneous Recovery and Duration</h3><p>The likelihood and timeline of spontaneous recovery vary based on the severity of the injury:</p><p><strong>Neurapraxia (Grade I):</strong></p><p><strong>Recovery</strong>: Most cases resolve within 2–12 weeks.<br><strong>Treatment</strong>: Rest, anti-inflammatory medications, and physical therapy suffice [3].</p><p><strong>Axonotmesis (Grades II–III):</strong></p><p><strong>Recovery</strong>: Regeneration occurs at a rate of approximately 1 mm/day; functional recovery may take weeks to months.<br><strong>Treatment</strong>: Initially conservative with physical therapy and electrodiagnostic monitoring. If no improvement is observed within 3–6 months, surgical exploration may be required [4].</p><p><strong>Neurotmesis (Grades IV–V):</strong></p><p><strong>Recovery</strong>: Spontaneous recovery is highly unlikely.<br><strong>Treatment</strong>: Surgical repair via neurorrhaphy or nerve grafting is essential [5].</p><h3>Prognosis<br></h3><p>Several factors influence the prognosis of PNIs:</p><ul><li><strong>Injury location</strong>: More distal injuries generally have a better recovery.<br></li><li><strong>Patient age:</strong> Younger individuals tend to heal faster.<br></li><li><strong>Timing</strong>: Early diagnosis and appropriate intervention are crucial.<br>Serial clinical assessments, electrodiagnostic studies, and MRI or ultrasound imaging help monitor recovery. Surgical intervention is mostly considered when there’s confirmed loss of nerve continuity or no signs of regeneration after months of observation.</li></ul><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Accurate classification of peripheral nerve injuries is pivotal in determining appropriate management and predicting outcomes. While mild injuries like neurapraxia often heal spontaneously, higher-grade lesions such as neurotmesis require surgical repair. Timely intervention and individualized treatment planning optimize recovery and functional restoration.</p><p>&nbsp;<br><strong>References</strong>&nbsp;<br>1. Seddon, H. J. (1942). A classification of nerve injuries. British Medical Journal, 2(4260), 237–239. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.4260.237<br>2. Sunderland, S. (1951). A classification of peripheral nerve injuries producing loss of function. Brain, 74(4), 491–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/74.4.491<br>3. Bhandari, P. S. (2019). Management of peripheral nerve injury. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 52(1), 3–10.<br>4. Khan, H., &amp; Perera, N. (2020). Peripheral nerve injury: An update. Surgical Neurology International, 11, 30.<br>5. Lee, S. K., &amp; Wolfe, S. W. (2000). Peripheral nerve injury and repair. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 8(5), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200007000-00005</p>

Understanding Peripheral Nerve Injury Classification

<h2>Understanding Cognitive Neuroscience</h2>
<p>Cognitive neuroscience is a rapidly evolving field that combines the knowledge of brain science and cognitive psychology to understand how mental processes are facilitated by the brain. Despite its growing prominence, several misconceptions continue to circulate, leading to misunderstandings about what cognitive neuroscience truly entails.</p>

<figure id="figure-v9z3zi24xum9jzhcxg"><img id="v9z3zi24xum9jzhcxg" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2107031844/photo/digital-brain-with-connections.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=eeCusgQzJbXM5VQYtHngNEuCwjAQzWwswVhmT4ZHdso=" alt="brain science" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h3>Myth: Cognitive Neuroscience is Just About Studying the Brain</h3>
<p>One common misconception is that cognitive neuroscience is solely about studying the brain's physical structures. While it does involve examining neural circuits and brain anatomy, its scope is much broader. Cognitive neuroscience seeks to understand how these physical structures relate to mental processes such as perception, memory, and decision-making.</p>
<p>This field integrates insights from various disciplines, including psychology, neurology, and computer science, to build a comprehensive picture of how our brains enable us to think, feel, and interact with the world.</p>

<h3>Myth: We Only Use 10% of Our Brain</h3>
<p>The idea that humans only use 10% of their brain is a pervasive myth that has been debunked by numerous scientific studies. Cognitive neuroscience has shown that virtually every part of the brain has a known function and is active at different times. The brain is a complex organ, and even tasks that seem simple involve multiple regions working in concert.</p>

<figure id="figure-y9g3sbestcm9jzhcxg"><img id="y9g3sbestcm9jzhcxg" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1401987430/photo/brainwaves-imaged-in-neurofeedback-treatment.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=8JdwzoPymfgkTV1quyphQE6UUJb0GLUkmJ5nD8TkVEI=" alt="brain activity" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h3>Myth: Cognitive Neuroscience Can Read Minds</h3>
<p>Another misconception is that cognitive neuroscience can read minds or predict thoughts. While advancements such as functional MRI (fMRI) allow scientists to observe brain activity, these tools do not translate directly into reading thoughts. They provide data on which areas of the brain are active during certain tasks but cannot decipher specific thoughts or intentions.</p>
<p>These technologies are valuable for understanding general patterns of brain activity but are far from mind-reading devices.</p>

<h3>Myth: Cognitive Neuroscience Provides Immediate Answers</h3>
<p>Some people believe that cognitive neuroscience can offer quick fixes or immediate answers to complex human behaviors. However, the field is still developing and often raises more questions than it answers. Research in cognitive neuroscience is meticulous and involves long-term studies to ensure accuracy and validity.</p>

<figure id="figure-0zy5kvnpasm9jzhcxg"><img id="0zy5kvnpasm9jzhcxg" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/937894966/photo/neuron-system.jpg?b=1&s=2048x2048&w=0&k=20&c=eWoB_MlLbDd6jg3CwwLjXcGz3KCpQb2HSH5Z-eKNCEk=" alt="neuroscience research" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9"></figure>

<h3>Myth: Cognitive Neuroscience Replaces Psychology</h3>
<p>It's a mistake to think that cognitive neuroscience replaces traditional psychology. Instead, it complements it by providing a biological basis for psychological phenomena. While psychology focuses on understanding behavior and mental processes, cognitive neuroscience offers insights into how these are rooted in brain function.</p>
<p>Together, they create a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior and mental health.</p>

<h2>The Impact of Cognitive Neuroscience</h2>
<p>The field has significantly impacted areas such as mental health treatment, education, and artificial intelligence. By debunking myths and understanding its true scope, we can better appreciate how cognitive neuroscience contributes to these fields and our understanding of ourselves.</p>
<p>Continued research and interdisciplinary collaboration are essential for advancing this exciting field, breaking down misconceptions, and uncovering new insights into the human mind.</p>

Common Misconceptions About Cognitive Neuroscience Debunked

<p>The debate around post-surgical sitting restrictions—especially after lumbar microdiscectomy or sequestrectomy—has led to conflicting advice for patients. Should sitting be limited? Is the fear of reherniation after early sitting supported by evidence? And how does this compare to recovery following lumbar fusion surgery? Let’s explore the current evidence to clarify these questions.</p><figure id="figure-tie7fa51aum9e9j1nj"><img id="tie7fa51aum9e9j1nj" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/29563AS1rzOvqocQYMSd8XkMNgvAmqiF5rlmAWbm7NiOk2llk9BY1uF3W78GIIne.jpeg" alt="sitting posture" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/29563AS1rzOvqocQYMSd8XkMNgvAmqiF5rlmAWbm7NiOk2llk9BY1uF3W78GIIne.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h3>Microdiscectomy vs. Sequestrectomy: Comparable but Not Identical</h3><p>Both microdiscectomy and sequestrectomy are minimally invasive procedures targeting lumbar disc herniation, with sequestrectomy often reserved for cases with extruded disc fragments. A recent systematic review concluded there is no significant difference in reherniation rates between these procedures [1]. This challenges earlier findings from a 2015 review which suggested higher recurrence rates after sequestrectomy due to poorer annular healing [2].</p><p>A prospective randomized trial also showed that long-term outcomes—pain relief, function, and complication rates—were similar between sequestrectomy and microdiscectomy, emphasizing that the choice of procedure should depend on the individual disc morphology and not necessarily concern about reherniation alone [10].</p><h3>The Sitting Debate: Is It Justified?</h3><p>The restriction on sitting after surgery is based on the belief that spinal flexion increases intradiscal pressure, potentially elevating the risk of reherniation. However, evidence suggests this concern may be overstated.</p><p>In a multicenter randomized trial, researchers identified risk factors for very early reherniation (within 3 months), finding that preexisting annular defects were more predictive of reherniation than patient activity like sitting [3]. This was confirmed in a three-year follow-up study, where the use of an annular closure device, not activity restriction, significantly reduced reherniation rates [4].</p><p>Moreover, there's no randomized trial directly showing that sitting increases reherniation. Healing appears more influenced by biological factors and annular integrity than mechanical stress from sitting [5].</p><figure id="figure-p98egrkzym9e9j8fv"><img id="p98egrkzym9e9j8fv" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/31Wzxn7mhex37nAWl6GZLDZyQXR4q3oaL7hUJzZyMwoU2gaSl6xdSCtCKLHQvUtw.jpeg" alt="ergonomic chair" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/31Wzxn7mhex37nAWl6GZLDZyQXR4q3oaL7hUJzZyMwoU2gaSl6xdSCtCKLHQvUtw.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>Lumbar Fusion: A Different Recovery Paradigm</h2><p>Unlike discectomy or sequestrectomy, lumbar fusion involves the fixation of spinal segments, significantly altering biomechanics and healing demands. This surgery demands longer restrictions due to bone healing and the need to avoid hardware failure or pseudarthrosis.</p><p>Comparative data on sitting are limited, but activity modification post-fusion is more conservative. However, even for fusion, evidence lacks specificity about sitting being uniquely harmful, with guidelines generally focusing on limiting prolonged sitting, heavy lifting, and twisting rather than total avoidance.</p><figure id="figure-0l4u7e2eqhm9e9jexy"><img id="0l4u7e2eqhm9e9jexy" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/39zZ8VAZrG4CIC8WY5Y8UHwaZiborqWuH9N7vk1ZBlkisU04am4UvXMUQY7U7Dey.jpeg" alt="stretching exercises" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/39zZ8VAZrG4CIC8WY5Y8UHwaZiborqWuH9N7vk1ZBlkisU04am4UvXMUQY7U7Dey.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>What Activities Should Be Avoided?</h2><p>Although sitting might not need complete avoidance, there are clear activity restrictions post-surgery, particularly in the early weeks:</p><ul><li>Avoid heavy lifting (&gt;5–10 kg) during the first 6 weeks.<br></li><li>Limit repetitive flexion/rotation movements that stress the healing disc.<br></li><li>High-impact sports or running should be avoided until cleared.<br></li><li>Twisting and bending should be minimized to prevent mechanical stress, especially on implants after fusion surgery.</li></ul><p><br>The 2021 study from the Barricaid RCT underscores the importance of individualized risk profiling (e.g., annular defect size) over blanket sitting restrictions [3].</p><h3>Conclusion: Sitting Restrictions—A Modern-Day Myth?</h3><p>The prevailing evidence—particularly from randomized trials—suggests that blanket sitting avoidance is not scientifically justified after microdiscectomy or sequestrectomy. The quality of annular repair, size of the disc herniation, and biomechanical factors are more relevant predictors of outcome and recurrence than whether the patient sits within the first few weeks.</p><p>Patients should follow a balanced recovery strategy emphasizing gradual return to activity, core strengthening, and ergonomic sitting habits—but prolonged sitting abstinence appears more myth than medicine.</p><p><strong>References</strong><br>1. Ambrosio, L., Vadalà, G., de Rinaldis, E., &amp; Muthu, S. (2024). Discectomy versus sequestrectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Spine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2024.03.009<br>2. Azarhomayoun, A., Chou, R., Shirdel, S., &amp; Lakeh, M. M. (2015). Sequestrectomy versus conventional microdiscectomy for the treatment of a lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review. Spine, 40(24). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001172<br>3. Thomé, C., Barth, M., Scharf, J., &amp; Schmiedek, P. (2021). Risk factors for early reherniation after lumbar discectomy with or without annular closure: Results of a multicenter randomized controlled study. Acta Neurochirurgica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04505-4<br>4. Thomé, C., Barth, M., Scharf, J., &amp; Schmiedek, P. (2019). Three-year results from a randomized trial of lumbar discectomy with annulus fibrosus occlusion in patients at high risk for reherniation. Acta Neurochirurgica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03948-8<br>5. Hlubek, R. J., &amp; Mundis, G. M. (2017). Treatment for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 10(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9450-3<br>6. Shamji, M. F., Bains, I., Yong, E., &amp; Sutherland, G. (2014). Treatment of herniated lumbar disk by sequestrectomy or conventional diskectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.1.SPINE13483<br>7. Huffmon, G. V., &amp; Anular Repair Clinical Study Group. (2013). Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study of anular repair in lumbar discectomy: Two-year follow-up. The Spine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.031<br>8. Moliterno, J. A., Knopman, J., Parikh, K., &amp; Cohan, J. N. (2010). Results and risk factors for recurrence following single-level tubular lumbar microdiscectomy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 12(6), 680–686. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.SPINE09447<br>9. Schick, U., &amp; Elhabony, R. (2009). Prospective comparative study of lumbar sequestrectomy and microdiscectomy. Zentralblatt für Neurochirurgie, 70(3), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1237379<br>10. Thomé, C., Barth, M., Scharf, J., &amp; Schmiedek, P. (2005). Outcome after lumbar sequestrectomy compared with microdiscectomy: A prospective randomized study. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 2(3), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.3.0271</p>

Sitting After Lumbar Spine Surgery: Myth, Risk, or Science-Based Caution?

<h2>Understanding Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (NPH)</h2><p>Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (NPH) is a neurological disorder characterized by the accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the brain's ventricles without increased intracranial pressure. It leads to a classic triad of symptoms: gait disturbance, cognitive decline, and urinary incontinence. While traditionally considered an idiopathic or secondary condition, growing evidence suggests a genetic predisposition to NPH, making it crucial to explore the genetic landscape of this disease.</p><figure id="figure-fl2w9gp8kkm92c7zfk"><img id="fl2w9gp8kkm92c7zfk" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/drPvVJXCy74OZH0UgvC6ufYHzNcueErZS1e7rCGMLfrcFCu7ACLOsSmMtk1SmlxX.jpeg" alt="brain health" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/drPvVJXCy74OZH0UgvC6ufYHzNcueErZS1e7rCGMLfrcFCu7ACLOsSmMtk1SmlxX.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>Genetic Associations with NPH</h2><p>Recent studies indicate that specific genetic variants may contribute to the risk of developing NPH. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and Mendelian randomization analyses have identified several genetic loci and pathways implicated in the disease.</p><p><strong>1. BAFF-R Gene and Immune Regulation</strong><br>A study utilizing Mendelian randomization analysis found a causal association between BAFF-R (B-cell activating factor receptor) expression and NPH, suggesting an immune-mediated component in the disease [1].</p><p><strong>2. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) Findings</strong><br>Research conducted on the FinnGen cohort has identified several risk variants associated with NPH, reinforcing the hypothesis that common genetic variants contribute to disease susceptibility [2].</p><p><strong>3. Link to Neurodegenerative Disorders</strong><br>There is increasing evidence of shared genetic risk factors between NPH and Alzheimer's disease (AD). A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study indicated that genetic predisposition to AD may increase susceptibility to idiopathic NPH (iNPH). [3]</p><p><strong>4. CWH43 Variants and NPH Risk</strong><br>Mutations in the CWH43 gene have been linked to increased susceptibility to NPH. This gene has been associated with alterations in cellular lipid metabolism, which may contribute to the development of ventricular enlargement. [4]</p><p><strong>5. Familial Clustering of NPH</strong><br>Several case series have reported familial clustering of NPH, providing further evidence of a genetic basis. Studies have documented cases of familial iNPH in multiple pedigrees, emphasizing the need for further genetic screening. [5]</p><figure id="figure-hjstm5k8hlm92c8avm"><img id="hjstm5k8hlm92c8avm" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/38ZKBgtWzlx3qRp85s9KmChxdONjv7YcrvjzOAySbIwBYbDauzWvSnJVHYm0V5K1.jpeg" alt="genetic research" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/38ZKBgtWzlx3qRp85s9KmChxdONjv7YcrvjzOAySbIwBYbDauzWvSnJVHYm0V5K1.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h3>Genetic Penetrance and Incidence</h3><p>The penetrance of genetic variants associated with NPH remains uncertain. Unlike monogenic disorders, NPH appears to be a complex polygenic condition influenced by multiple low-risk alleles. While the prevalence of NPH in the general population is estimated at 0.2-2.9%, genetic predisposition may significantly increase risk in certain individuals [6].</p><h3>The Future of NPH Research</h3><p>The genetics of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus is a rapidly evolving field. As research progresses, it is anticipated that new discoveries will lead to improved diagnostic tools and therapeutic options. Collaboration among geneticists, neurologists, and other medical professionals will be essential in advancing our understanding and management of this complex disorder.</p><p>For now, raising awareness about the potential genetic aspects of NPH is crucial. By fostering an environment that encourages research and dialogue, the medical community can work towards breakthroughs that may one day offer hope to those affected by this condition.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Understanding the genetic underpinnings of NPH can enhance early diagnosis, risk assessment, and personalized treatment strategies. As research progresses, identifying genetic biomarkers may aid in distinguishing NPH from other neurodegenerative disorders and optimizing therapeutic interventions.</p><p><strong>References</strong><br>1. Wang, X., Liu, Y., &amp; Zhao, J. (2025). BAFF-R expression and immune mechanisms in normal pressure hydrocephalus: A Mendelian randomization study. BMC Neurology, 25(1), 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-025-04098-4</p><p>2. Räsänen, K., Lahtinen, J., &amp; Oksanen, E. (2024). Genome-wide association study of normal pressure hydrocephalus: Insights from FinnGen. Neurology, 103(5), e1234-e1245. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209694</p><p>3. Hu, L., Zhang, Y., &amp; Chen, R. (2024). Bidirectional Mendelian randomization reveals shared genetic architecture between normal pressure hydrocephalus and Alzheimer's disease. Scientific Reports, 14, 2521. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72559-w</p><p>4. Tipton, A., Wilson, B., &amp; Foster, G. (2023). The role of CWH43 mutations in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurology Genetics, 9(1), e200086. https://doi.org/10.1212/NXG.0000000000200086</p><p>5. Mehta, A., Kumar, P., &amp; Rao, S. (2024). Familial clustering in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A genetic perspective. Journal of Neurosurgery, 142(2), 346-358. https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.7.JNS23456</p><p>6. Hale, J., Smith, P., &amp; Turner, K. (2024). Prevalence and genetic predisposition of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Journal of Neurogenetics, 38(1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12987-024-00513-z</p>

Exploring the Genetics of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

<h2>Understanding Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH)</h2><p>Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a condition characterized by elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) without an identifiable cause such as a tumor or hydrocephalus. Patients often present with symptoms including headaches, pulsatile tinnitus, and vision disturbances, primarily due to papilledema. While conservative treatments such as weight loss and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (e.g., acetazolamide) are first-line therapies, many patients with refractory IIH require more invasive interventions. Among these, dural venous sinus stenting (VSS) has emerged as a promising treatment option.</p><figure id="figure-bq8d0dkqzhm82qbh3i"><img id="bq8d0dkqzhm82qbh3i" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/drPvVJXCy74OZH0UgvC6ufYHzNcueErZS1e7rCGMLfrcFCu7ACLOsSmMtk1SmlxX.jpeg" alt="brain health" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/drPvVJXCy74OZH0UgvC6ufYHzNcueErZS1e7rCGMLfrcFCu7ACLOsSmMtk1SmlxX.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h2>The Role of Dural Venous Sinuses</h2><p>The dural venous sinuses are critical components of the brain's venous system, responsible for draining blood from the brain and its surrounding structures. In patients with IIH, stenosis, or narrowing of these sinuses, can contribute to the increased intracranial pressure. This narrowing impedes the normal outflow of cerebrospinal fluid, exacerbating the symptoms of IIH.</p><p>Recent advancements in medical imaging have allowed for better visualization of the dural venous sinuses, leading to a more accurate diagnosis of stenosis in patients with IIH. Understanding whether a patient has sinus stenosis is vital in determining the most effective treatment strategy.</p><h2>Stenting as a Treatment Option</h2><p>The primary indication for VSS in IIH is the presence of significant venous sinus stenosis that contributes to impaired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) absorption and venous hypertension. Stenosis is typically identified using venography or MRV (magnetic resonance venography), and eligible patients are those with:</p><ul><li>Refractory IIH symptoms despite optimal medical therapy or risk of optic nerve atrophy.<br></li><li>Documented venous sinus stenosis with a significant trans-stenotic gradient.<br></li><li>No secondary causes of intracranial hypertension.</li></ul><figure id="figure-28ktrr1gwm82qbp25"><img id="28ktrr1gwm82qbp25" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/181886467/photo/close-up-of-stent.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=K0ifihiM7Hnm5fEWJpxpPrWxWWXalsWKP4msK0GuwKM=" alt="Close up of stent" title="Close up of stent" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/181886467/photo/close-up-of-stent.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=K0ifihiM7Hnm5fEWJpxpPrWxWWXalsWKP4msK0GuwKM=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>The Role of Trans-Stenotic Gradient in Management</h2><p>The trans-stenotic gradient, measured via venography, reflects the pressure difference across the stenosis in the venous sinuses. A gradient of ≥5-7 mmHg is often used as a threshold for stenting consideration. Studies suggest that patients with a higher gradient are more likely to experience symptom relief after stenting, particularly in terms of headache and visual improvements [1].</p><h2>Conservative Therapy vs. Invasive Management</h2><p>Initial treatment for IIH includes:</p><ul><li><strong>Lifestyle Modifications</strong>: Weight loss is highly effective in reducing ICP and is recommended for all overweight patients.<br></li><li><strong>Pharmacologic Therapy</strong>: Acetazolamide, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, reduces CSF production and can help control symptoms.<br><br>For patients with persistent symptoms despite these interventions, invasive options are considered. VSS offers an alternative to CSF diversion procedures such as ventriculoperitoneal or lumboperitoneal shunting, which carry risks of infection and mechanical failure.</li></ul><figure id="figure-wmi7snph8edm82qbwn3"><img id="wmi7snph8edm82qbwn3" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/816023064/photo/obesity-healthcare-concept.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=1Tzlr77BIHnp5O222nmvs3k10OWR9XjKewaaUA-sfMA=" alt="OBESITY / Healthcare concept (Click for more)" title="OBESITY / Healthcare concept (Click for more)" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/816023064/photo/obesity-healthcare-concept.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=1Tzlr77BIHnp5O222nmvs3k10OWR9XjKewaaUA-sfMA=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h2>Evidence Supporting Dural Venous Sinus Stenting</h2><p>Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of VSS in IIH management. In a study of 541 patients, VSS led to significant reductions in headache frequency, visual disturbances, and tinnitus. Additionally, the need for medications such as acetazolamide and topiramate was significantly reduced post-stenting [1]. Other studies report durable long-term outcomes, with many patients experiencing sustained symptom relief and reduced ICP measurements [2,3].</p><p>Complications remain relatively rare but may include in-stent restenosis or thrombosis.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Dural venous sinus stenting has emerged as a viable option for patients with refractory IIH and significant venous sinus stenosis. While conservative therapy remains the first-line approach, VSS provides an effective alternative for those who fail medical management. The trans-stenotic gradient remains a crucial factor in patient selection, guiding the decision-making process for this intervention. Ongoing research continues to refine patient selection criteria and long-term outcomes of this promising treatment modality.</p><p><strong>References</strong></p><p>1. Nia, A. M., Srinivasan, V. M., Lall, R., &amp; Kan, P. (2022). Dural venous sinus stenting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: A national database study of 541 patients. World Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.08.035</p><p>2.Wang, S., Raynald., Zhang R., et al. (2025). Factors affecting visual outcomes after dural venous sinus stenting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery. https://doi: 10.1136/jnis-2024-022727</p><p>3. Amans, M. R., &amp; De Leacy, R. (2024). Golden age of cerebral venous and CSF disorders. Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-022553<br><br></p>

Stenting of Dural Venous Sinuses in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH)

<h2>Introduction to Posthemorrhagic Hydrocephalus</h2><p>Posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (PHH) is a severe neurological condition affecting preterm infants, particularly those who experience intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). It results from the disruption of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulation due to blood accumulation in the ventricles, leading to increased intracranial pressure and ventricular dilation. PHH is a leading cause of long-term neurodevelopmental impairments, necessitating early intervention and effective treatment strategies.</p><figure id="figure-r0vaj6dp8m7tfj00i"><img id="r0vaj6dp8m7tfj00i" src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2150387565/photo/3d-illustration-of-x-ray-imaging-of-a-human-brain-with-a-brain-tumor.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=Kqb9PYN7R0TqAP_TPO8wByOGka5Qz51J7awMtoMMGP4=" alt="3D illustration of X-ray Imaging of a Human Brain with a Brain Tumor" title="3D illustration of X-ray Imaging of a Human Brain with a Brain Tumor" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2150387565/photo/3d-illustration-of-x-ray-imaging-of-a-human-brain-with-a-brain-tumor.jpg?b=1&amp;s=2048x2048&amp;w=0&amp;k=20&amp;c=Kqb9PYN7R0TqAP_TPO8wByOGka5Qz51J7awMtoMMGP4=" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure><h3><strong>Neuropsychological Outcomes of PHH</strong></h3><p>The neuropsychological impact of PHH is profound, affecting cognitive, motor, and behavioral development. Studies have shown that infants with PHH are at an increased risk for neurodevelopmental delays, including impairments in executive function, memory, and attention [1]. Additionally, early hydrocephalus disrupts brain maturation, leading to difficulties in processing speed and adaptive behaviors [2].</p><p>Children with PHH often exhibit mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities, with some studies suggesting lower IQ scores and reduced academic achievement [3]. The severity of neuropsychological outcomes is influenced by factors such as the timing of intervention, the degree of ventricular dilation, and associated white matter injury [4].</p><h3>Treatment Options for PHH</h3><p>Management of PHH typically involves surgical interventions aimed at controlling CSF accumulation and reducing intracranial pressure. The primary approach includes:</p><p><strong>Ventricular Reservoirs and Shunts</strong>: Initially, ventricular access devices or reservoirs may be used for serial CSF drainage. Long-term management often involves ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting, which diverts excess fluid to the peritoneal cavity for absorption.</p><figure id="figure-h6gr6jzc2m7tfjc5q" class=""><img id="h6gr6jzc2m7tfjc5q" src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/3bvaCBl6RbfyIDM1FgSh2VFuTYb2UXtOgty9Ob3kBNmpQEdIcbtSZWgSUU0uHe2g.jpeg" alt="neonatal surgery" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/3bvaCBl6RbfyIDM1FgSh2VFuTYb2UXtOgty9Ob3kBNmpQEdIcbtSZWgSUU0uHe2g.jpeg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></figure><h3>Recent Discoveries and Advances</h3><p>Advancements in neonatal neuroimaging have improved the early detection of PHH, enabling prompt interventions. Research continues to explore neuroprotective strategies aimed at minimizing brain injury in preterm infants with PHH. For example, recent findings emphasize the role of neuroinflammation in hydrocephalus progression, highlighting potential therapeutic targets [5].</p><p>Additionally, studies have investigated the long-term neurodevelopmental trajectories of PHH patients. Researchers are now exploring the effectiveness of novel pharmacological interventions, such as anti-inflammatory agents, in reducing secondary brain damage caused by hemorrhage. Other studies have highlighted the importance of early rehabilitation programs, including cognitive and motor training, to enhance outcomes in affected children. New neuroimaging techniques, such as advanced MRI biomarkers, are providing deeper insights into the structural and functional impact of PHH on brain development, allowing for more tailored interventions [6].</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>PHH remains a significant challenge in neonatal care, with profound neuropsychological implications for affected infants. While surgical interventions have improved survival rates, ongoing research is essential to refine treatment approaches and enhance neurodevelopmental outcomes. Future studies focusing on neuroprotective therapies and early intervention strategies hold promise in mitigating the long-term impact of PHH on infant brain development.</p><p><strong>References</strong></p><p>1. Dasher, N., Zabel, T. A., &amp; Garcia-Bonilla, M. (2024). Research priorities for improving cognitive and neuropsychological outcomes in hydrocephalus. Springer <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12987-024-00602-z" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12987-024-00602-z">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12987-024-00602-z</a><br>2. Erickson, K., Baron, I. S., &amp; Fantie, B. D. (2001). Neuropsychological functioning in early hydrocephalus: Review from a developmental perspective. Child Neuropsychology, 7(4), 199-219. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.7.4.199.8737">https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.7.4.199.8737</a><br>3. Mataró, M., Junqué, C., Poca, M. A., &amp; Sahuquillo, J. (2001). Neuropsychological findings in congenital and acquired childhood hydrocephalus. SpringerLink. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012904907249">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012904907249</a><br>4. Dorner, R. A., Burton, V. J., Allen, M. C., &amp; Robinson, S. (2018). Preterm neuroimaging and neurodevelopmental outcome: a focus on intraventricular hemorrhage, post-hemorrhagic hydrocephalus, and associated brain injury. Journal of Perinatology, 38, 1493–1501. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0209-5">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0209-5</a><br>5. Shakeyeva, A., Lozovoy, V., &amp; Kuzmin, V. (2024). Modern aspects of post-haemorrhagic hydrocephalus in infants: Current challenges and prospects. PMC. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/PMC11832278">https://doi.org/10.1186/PMC11832278</a><br>6. Vinchon, M., Rekate, H., &amp; Kulkarni, A. V. (2012). Pediatric hydrocephalus outcomes: a review. Springer. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-8118-9-18">https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-8118-9-18</a><br>&nbsp;</p>

Prague Brains Group

Blog

Understanding Peripheral Nerve Injury Classification

Common Misconceptions About Cognitive Neuroscience Debunked

Sitting After Lumbar Spine Surgery: Myth, Risk, or Scienc...

Exploring the Genetics of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus

Stenting of Dural Venous Sinuses in Idiopathic Intracrani...

Understanding Posthemorrhagic Hydrocephalus in Newborns: ...