Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Management and outcome of vein of Galen malformation
  1. N McSweeney1,
  2. S Brew2,
  3. S Bhate1,
  4. T Cox2,
  5. D J Roebuck2,
  6. V Ganesan1,3
  1. 1Department of Paediatric Neurology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK
  3. 3Neurosciences Unit, Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vijeya Ganesan, The Wolfson Centre, Mecklenburgh Square, London WC1N 2AP, UK; v.ganesan{at}


Objective To describe our experience of treating children with vein of Galen aneurysmal malformation (VGM) in a single UK centre between 2003 and 2008.

Method Retrospective review of case notes and neuroimaging.

Results 33 children were seen (26 neonates, seven infants), of whom 28 underwent endovascular treatment. Four were not offered treatment as they had evidence of severe diffuse brain injury at presentation; treatment was deferred in another who subsequently died. Seven children died (two of whom had endovascular treatment). Of the survivors (all treated), 13 (39%) are neurodevelopmentally intact, seven (21%) have mild neurodevelopmental impairment and the remaining six (18%) have significant neurological impairment. The authors were not able to identify clinical or radiological parameters which strongly predicted outcome. Of note, two children with initially low Bicêtre scores were neurologically intact after successful embolisation.

Conclusion The outlook for children with VGM is significantly better since the advent of endovascular treatment. Decisions about the appropriateness and timing of treatment should be taken by an experienced multidisciplinary team.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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.


  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Great Ormond Street Hospital Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.