Benign external hydrocephalus in infants, characterized by macrocephaly and typical neuroimaging findings, is considered as a self-limiting condition and is therefore rarely treated. This review concerns all aspects of this condition: etiology, neuroimaging, symptoms and clinical findings, treatment, and outcome, with emphasis on management. The review is based on a systematic search in the Pubmed and Web of Science databases. The search covered various forms of hydrocephalus, extracerebral fluid, and macrocephaly. Studies reporting small children with idiopathic external hydrocephalus were included, mostly focusing on the studies reporting a long-term outcome. A total of 147 studies are included, the majority however with a limited methodological quality. Several theories regarding pathophysiology and various symptoms, signs, and clinical findings underscore the heterogeneity of the condition. Neuroimaging is important in the differentiation between external hydrocephalus and similar conditions. A transient delay of psychomotor development is commonly seen during childhood. A long-term outcome is scarcely reported, and the results are varying. Although most children with external hydrocephalus seem to do well both initially and in the long term, a substantial number of patients show temporary or permanent psychomotor delay. To verify that this truly is a benign condition, we suggest that future research on external hydrocephalus should focus on the long-term effects of surgical treatment as opposed to conservative management.

Neither early nor late outcome measures revealed any significant differences between the two subarachnoid hemorrhage treatment models.

The severity of cognitive impairment one year post SAH is predicted by the volume of blood in the subarachnoid space as measured by the Fisher score.

Objectives Deep brain stimulation of the anterior thalamic nucleus (ANT‐DBS) is an established option in treatment‐resistant epilepsy and obtained FDA approval in 2018. Increased psychiatric comorbidity is well known in epilepsy. The main objective of this study was to investigate possible neuropsychiatric treatment‐related changes in patients receiving ANT‐DBS. Materials and Methods Bilateral ANT electrodes were implanted in 18 adult patients with refractory epilepsy in a randomized, double‐blinded study. Immediately after implantation, patients were randomized to stimulation ON (n = 8) or OFF (n = 10) for the first 6 months (blinded phase). During the next six months (open phase), both groups received active stimulation. Neuropsychiatric assessment was conducted before implantation (T1), at the end of the blinded period (T2), and 1 year after implantation (T3). Results Comparing preoperative status (T1) and 12 months (T3), postoperative outcome in all patients did not show significant differences between the two groups for any of the applied tests. Groupwise comparisons across the two first time points (the blinded period, representing the randomized controlled trial) showed no significant differences between the two groups in any of the neuropsychiatric parameters studied. Comparing test results after 6 months of stimulation in both groups (sum of ON group T1 to T2 and OFF group T2 to T3) did not show significant changes for any of the psychiatric assessments. Conclusions Our results indicate that ANT‐DBS has limited effect concerning psychiatric issues. Subjective side effects were, however, reported in individual patients.

The safety and effect on seizure frequency of anterior thalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (ANT-DBS) were studied in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. Patients were followed for 12 months. The first 6 months were blinded with regard to active stimulation or not. After 6 months, all patients received active stimulation. Material and methods Bilateral ANT electrodes were implanted into 18 patients suffering from focal, pharmacoresistant epilepsy. Antiepileptic treatment was kept unchanged from three months prior to operation. The Liverpool seizure severity scale (LSSS) was used to measure the burden of epilepsy. Results There was no significant difference between the 2 groups at the end of the blinded period at 6 months. However, when considering all patients and comparing 6 months of stimulation with baseline, there was a significant, 22% reduction in the frequency of all seizures (p=0.009). Four patients had ≥ 50% reduction in total seizure frequency and 5 patients ≥ 50% reduction in focal seizures after 6 months of stimulation. No increased effect over time was shown. LSSS at 6 months compared to baseline showed no significant difference between the 2 groups, but a small, significant reduction in LSSS was found when all patients had received stimulation for 6 months. Conclusions Our study supports results from earlier studies concerning DBS as a safe treatment option, with effects even in patients with severe, refractory epilepsy. However, our results are not as encouraging as those reported from many other, mainly unblinded, and open studies.