Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis after ablation with 1470 nm laser: Incidence, progression, and risk factors

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 325-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Sufian ◽  
A Arnez ◽  
N Labropoulos ◽  
S Lakhanpal
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Vein Diameter ◽  
Saphenofemoral Junction

Objectives To evaluate the incidence of heat-induced thrombosis, its progression and risk factors that may contribute to its formation after endovenous laser ablation. Methods This was a prospective evaluation of all patients who had endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein, accessory saphenous vein, and small saphenous vein using 1470 nm wavelength laser, from March 2010 to September 2011. All patients who developed endovenous heat-induced thrombosis at the saphenofemoral junction or at the saphenopopliteal junction were included. Demographic data, history of venous thrombosis, body mass index, vein diameter, reflux time, catheter tip position, endovenous heat-induced thrombosis progression, number of phlebectomies, and venous clinical severity scores were analyzed. Duplex ultrasound was done in all patients preoperatively, and 2–3 days postoperatively. Results Endovenous laser ablation was performed in 2168 limbs. Fifty-seven percent had great saphenous vein, 13% accessory saphenous vein, and 30% small saphenous vein ablation. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis was developed in 18 limbs (12 at saphenofemoral junction and six at saphenopopliteal junction) for an incidence of 0.9%. Eight were class 1 and 10 were > class 2. No pulmonary embolism was reported. The percentage of men with endovenous heat-induced thrombosis was higher compared to those without (39% vs. 24%, p = .14). The median age for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients was 59.6 compared to non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis ( p = .021). Great saphenous vein/accessory saphenous vein diameter for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients was 8.0 mm versus 6.3 mm for non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients ( p = .014), and for small saphenous vein it was 5.7 mm versus 4.5 mm ( p = .16). Multiple concomitant phlebectomies were performed in 55.6% of the endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients compared to 37% in non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis ( p = .001). All other parameters were similar between endovenous heat-induced thrombosis and non-endovenous heat-induced thrombosis group. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis resolution occurred in 16 cases at 2–4 but two cases progressing from class 1 to 2, before resolution. The mean VCSS score for endovenous heat-induced thrombosis patients preoperatively was 5.6 and improved to 2.8 ( p = .003) at one month. Conclusion Risk factors associated with endovenous heat-induced thrombosis formation after endovenous laser ablation include: vein size, age, and multiple phlebectomies. Endovenous heat-induced thrombosis resolves in 2–4 weeks in most patients but it may worsen in few.

A description of the ‘smile sign’ and multi-pass technique for endovenous laser ablation of large diameter great saphenous veins

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 534-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma B Dabbs ◽  
Laurensius E Mainsiouw ◽  
Judith M Holdstock ◽  
Barrie A Price ◽  
Mark S Whiteley
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Diameter Distribution ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Veins ◽  
Vein Diameter

Aims To report on great saphenous vein diameter distribution of patients undergoing endovenous laser ablation for lower limb varicose veins and the ablation technique for large diameter veins. Methods We collected retrospective data of 1929 (943 left leg and 986 right leg) clinically incompetent great saphenous vein diameters treated with endovenous laser ablation over five years and six months. The technical success of procedure, complications and occlusion rate at short-term follow-up are reported. Upon compression, larger diameter veins may constrict asymmetrically rather than concentrically around the laser fibre (the ‘smile sign’), requiring multiple passes of the laser into each dilated segment to achieve complete ablation. Results Of 1929 great saphenous veins, 334 (17.31%) had a diameter equal to or over 15 mm, which has been recommended as the upper limit for endovenous laser ablation by some clinicians. All were successfully treated and occluded upon short-term follow-up. Conclusion We suggest that incompetent great saphenous veins that need treatment can always be treated with endovenous laser ablation, and open surgery should never be recommended on vein diameter alone.

scholarly journals A randomized prospective long-term (>1 year) clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation to 980 nm laser ablation of the great saphenous vein

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm Sydnor ◽  
John Mavropoulos ◽  
Natalia Slobodnik ◽  
Luke Wolfe ◽  
Brian Strife ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Venous Clinical Severity Score ◽  
Superficial Venous Insufficiency

Purpose To compare the short- and long-term (>1 year) efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (ClosureFAST™) versus endovenous laser ablation (980 nm diode laser) for the treatment of superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein. Materials and methods Two hundred patients with superficial venous insufficiency of the great saphenous vein were randomized to receive either radiofrequency ablation or endovenous laser ablation (and simultaneous adjunctive therapies for surface varicosities when appropriate). Post-treatment sonographic and clinical assessment was conducted at one week, six weeks, and six months for closure, complications, and patient satisfaction. Clinical assessment of each patient was conducted at one year and then at yearly intervals for patient satisfaction. Results Post-procedure pain ( p < 0.0001) and objective post-procedure bruising ( p = 0.0114) were significantly lower in the radiofrequency ablation group. Improvements in venous clinical severity score were noted through six months in both groups (endovenous laser ablation 6.6 to 1; radiofrequency ablation 6.2 to 1) with no significant difference in venous clinical severity score ( p = 0.4066) or measured adverse effects; 89 endovenous laser ablation and 87 radiofrequency patients were interviewed at least 12 months out with a mean long-term follow-up of 44 and 42 months ( p = 0.1096), respectively. There were four treatment failures in each group, and every case was correctable with further treatment. Overall, there were no significant differences with regard to patient satisfaction between radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation ( p = 0.3009). There were no cases of deep venous thrombosis in either group at any time during this study. Conclusions Radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation are highly effective and safe from both anatomic and clinical standpoints over a multi-year period and neither modality achieved superiority over the other.

Fate and clinical significance of saphenofemoral junction tributaries following endovenous laser ablation of great saphenous vein

2007 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 722-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. S. Theivacumar ◽  
D. Dellagrammaticas ◽  
R. J. Beale ◽  
A. I. D. Mavor ◽  
M. J. Gough
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Clinical Significance ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenofemoral Junction

A new non-tumescent endovenous ablation method for varicose vein treatment: Early results of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (VariClose®)

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alptekin Yasim ◽  
Erdinc Eroglu ◽  
Orhan Bozoglan ◽  
Bulent Mese ◽  
Mehmet Acipayam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Early Results ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Endovenous Ablation ◽  
Vein Diameter

Objective This report aims to present the early results of a retrospective study of the use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (VariClose®)-based non-tumescent endovenous ablation for the treatment of patients with varicose veins. Method One hundred and eighty patients with varicose veins due to incompetent saphenous veins were treated with the VariClose® endovenous ablation method between May 2014 and November 2014. The patient sample consisted of 86 men and 94 women, with a mean age of 47.7 ± 11.7 years. The patients had a great saphenous vein diameter greater than 5.5 mm and a small saphenous vein diameter greater than 4 mm in conjunction with reflux for more than 0.5 s. Patients with varicose veins were evaluated with venous duplex examination, Clinical, Etiological, Anatomical and Pathophysiological classification (CEAP), and their Venous Clinical Severity Scores were recorded. Results The median CEAP score of patients was three, and the saphenous vein diameters were between 5.5 and 14 mm (mean of 7.7 ± 2.1 mm). A percutaneous entry was made under local anesthesia to the great saphenous vein in 169 patients and to the small saphenous vein in 11 patients. Duplex examination immediately after the procedure showed closure of the treated vein in 100% of the treated segment. No complications were observed. The mean follow-up time was 5.5 months (ranging from three to seven months). Recanalization was not observed in any of the patients during follow-up. The average Venous Clinical Severity Scores was 10.2 before the procedure and decreased to 3.9 after three months (p < 0.001). Conclusion The application of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (VariClose®) is an effective method for treating varicose veins; it yielded a high endovenous closure rate, with no need for tumescent anesthesia. However, long-term results are currently unknown.

The clinical significance of below-knee great saphenous vein reflux following endovenous laser ablation of above-knee great saphenous vein

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
N S Theivacumar ◽  
R J Darwood ◽  
D Dellegrammaticas ◽  
A I D Mavor ◽  
M J Gough
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Standard Technique ◽  
Foam Sclerotherapy ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Residual Symptoms ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Group B

Aims The standard technique for endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) for varicose veins due to great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux involves obliteration of the above-knee (AK) GSV. This study assesses the significance of persistent below-knee (BK) GSV reflux following such therapy. Methods Sixty-nine limbs (64 patients) with varicosities and GSV reflux underwent AK-EVLA. Post treatment, GSV reflux (ultrasound: six, 12 weeks) and Aberdeen varicose vein severity scores (AVVSS, 12 weeks) were assessed, and residual varicosities treated with foam sclerotherapy (six weeks). Results The untreated BK-GSV remained patent in all limbs. Ultrasound showed normal antegrade flow in 34/69 (49%, Group A), flash reflux <1 s in 7/69 (10%, Group B) and >1 s reflux in 28/69 (41%, Group C). Although AVVSS improved in all groups ( P < 0.001): A: 14.6 (8.4–19.3) versus 2.8 (0.5–4.4), B: 13.9 (7.5–20.1) versus 3.7 (2.1–6.8), C: 15.1 (8.9–22.5) versus 8.1 (5.3–12.6) the improvement was less in Group C ( P < 0.001 versus A and B) and was associated with a greater requirement (A: 4/34 [12%]; B: 1/7 [14%]; C: 25/28 [89%]) for sclerotherapy (persisting varicosities) ( P < 0.001). Conclusion Although AK-GSV EVLA improves symptoms regardless of persisting BK reflux, the latter appears responsible for residual symptoms and a greater need for sclerotherapy for residual varicosities.

scholarly journals Endovenous Laser Ablation for Treatment of a Partially Thrombosed Proximal Great Saphenous Vein

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Luca Spinedi ◽  
Hans Stricker ◽  
Daniel Staub ◽  
Heiko Uthoff
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Alternative Treatment ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Superficial Vein ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Alternative Treatment Option ◽  
Superficial Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Saphenofemoral Junction

Introduction. Superficial vein thrombosis of the great saphenous vein near to the saphenofemoral junction is generally treated with anticoagulation or surgically. Report. We present the case of a 70-year-old man with varicosities and a partially thrombosed great saphenous vein near to the saphenofemoral junction, treated with endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein. Discussion. The case illustrates an alternative treatment option for superficial vein thrombosis of the great saphenous vein, which permits avoiding a prolonged anticoagulation or surgical procedure.

scholarly journals Persistent below-knee great saphenous vein reflux after above-knee endovenous laser ablation with 1470-nm laser: a prospective study

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-119
Author(s):  
Walter Junior Boim de Araujo ◽  
Jorge Rufino Ribas Timi ◽  
Carlos Seme Nejm Junior ◽  
Fabiano Luiz Erzinger ◽  
Filipe Carlos Caron
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ablation ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Venous Disease ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
Venous Clinical Severity Score

Abstract Background In endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), the great saphenous vein (GSV) is usually ablated from the knee to the groin, with no treatment of the below-knee segment regardless of its reflux status. However, persistent below-knee GSV reflux appears to be responsible for residual varicosities and symptoms of venous disease. Objectives To evaluate clinical and duplex ultrasound (DUS) outcomes of the below-knee segment of the GSV after above-knee EVLA associated with conventional surgical treatment of varicosities and incompetent perforating veins. Methods Thirty-six patients (59 GSVs) were distributed into 2 groups, a control group (26 GSVs with normal below-knee flow on DUS) and a test group (33 GSVs with below-knee reflux). Above-knee EVLA was performed with a 1470-nm bare-fiber diode laser and supplemented with phlebectomies of varicose tributaries and insufficient perforating-communicating veins through mini-incisions. Follow-up DUS, clinical evaluation using the venous clinical severity score (VCSS), and evaluation of complications were performed at 3-5 days after the procedure and at 1, 6, and 12 months. Results Mean patient age was 45 years, and 31 patients were women (86.12%). VCSS improved in both groups. Most patients in the test group exhibited normalization of reflux, with normal flow at the beginning of follow-up (88.33% of GSVs at 3-5 days and 70% at 1 month). However, in many of these patients reflux eventually returned (56.67% of GSVs at 6 months and 70% at 1 year). Conclusions These data suggest that reflux in the below-knee segment of the GSV was not influenced by the treatment performed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document